Urban Solid Waste Management: Envisaging ...

24 downloads 2084 Views 2MB Size Report
chain of solid waste management services. Section 5 discusses various solutions for urban solid waste management including social, economic and ...
Draft, not for citation

Urban Solid Waste Management: Envisaging Framework and Solutions for Tackling Solid Waste in Cities Author Mohit Sharma

CEEW Working paper May 2016 Ceew.in

Draft, not for citation

Copyright © 2016 Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission. A working paper on “Urban Solid Waste Management: Envisaging Framework and Solutions for Tackling Solid Waste in Cities” Disclaimer: The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of CEEW. Editor: The Council on Energy, Environment and Water is one of India’s (and South Asia’s) leading think-tanks with a vast scope of research and publications. CEEW addresses pressing global challenges through an integrated and internationally focused approach. It prides itself on the independence of its high quality research, develops partnerships with public and private institutions, and engages with wider public. Visit us at http://ceew.in/ and follow us on Twitter @CEEWIndia. Council on Energy, Environment and Water Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi 110001, India

Draft, not for citation

ABOUT CEEW The Council on Energy, Environment and Water (http://ceew.in/) is one of South Asia’s leading notfor-profit policy research institutions. CEEW addresses pressing global challenges through an integrated and internationally focused approach. It prides itself on the independence of its high quality research, develops partnerships with public and private institutions, and engages with wider public. CEEW was ranked in 2015 the best in South Asia in two categories three years running (Global Go To Think Tank Index); among the top 100 out of 6846 think-tanks in nine categories. This included CEEW being featured on a prestigious list of ‘Best Managed Think Tanks’ and ‘Best Independent Think Tanks’. CEEW has also been rated as India’s top climate change think-tank in 2012 and 2013 as per the ICCG Climate Think Tank’s standardised rankings. In little over five years of operations, CEEW has engaged in more than 100 research projects, published well over 50 peer-reviewed books, policy reports and papers, advised governments around the world over 160 times, engaged with industry to encourage investments in clean technologies and improve efficiency in resource use, promoted bilateral and multilateral initiatives between governments on more than 40 occasions, helped state governments with water and irrigation reforms, and organised more than 125 seminars and conferences. CEEW’s major projects on energy policy include India’s largest energy access survey (ACCESS); the first independent assessment of India’s solar mission; the Clean Energy Access Network (CLEAN) of hundreds of decentralised clean energy firms; India’s green industrial policy; the $125 million India-U.S. Joint Clean Energy R&D Centers; developing the strategy for and supporting activities related to the International Solar Alliance; modelling long-term energy scenarios; energy subsidies reform; decentralised energy in India; energy storage technologies; India’s 2030 renewable energy roadmap; solar roadmap for Indian Railways; clean energy subsidies (for the Rio+20 Summit); and renewable energy jobs, finance and skills. CEEW’s major projects on climate, environment and resource security include advising and contributing to climate negotiations (COP-21) in Paris; assessing global climate risks; assessing India’s adaptation gap; low-carbon rural development; environmental clearances; modelling HFC emissions; business case for phasing down HFCs; assessing India’s critical mineral resources; geoengineering governance; climate finance; nuclear power and low-carbon pathways; electric rail transport; monitoring air quality; business case for energy efficiency and emissions reductions; India’s first report on global governance, submitted to the National Security Adviser; foreign policy implications for resource security; India’s power sector reforms; resource nexus, and strategic industries and technologies for India’s National Security Advisory Board; Maharashtra-Guangdong partnership on sustainability; and building Sustainable Cities. CEEW’s major projects on water governance and security include the 584-page National Water Resources Framework Study for India’s 12th Five Year Plan; irrigation reform for Bihar; Swachh Bharat; supporting India’s National Water Mission; collective action for water security; mapping India’s traditional water bodies; modelling water-energy nexus; circular economy of water; and multistakeholder initiatives for urban water management.

Draft, not for citation

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Mohit Sharma Mohit Sharma is a Junior Research Associate at the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), India. His research interests include climate and resource nexus, sustainable consumption and production, improvements in urban ecosystems. At CEEW, he has been involved in modelling hydrofluorocarbon emissions from India’s cooling sector. Mohit has worked as research assistant at Technical University of Denmark and apart from this; he has close to three years of experience working with industry in India and Denmark. Mohit is a graduate in Sustainable Energy from TU, Denmark and holds a degree in Chemical engineering from National Institute of Technology in India. Mohit is a self-taught musician and loves street photography.

Draft, not for citation

Introduction This study explores the gaps and deficiencies in existing waste management practices in urban India though a system approach. Scope of this study is limited to urban solid waste which includes waste generated by residential and commercial sources. Background sets the context for current urban waste management scenario in the country and efficacy of different regulatory, implementation and monitoring regimes is discussed in second section. Wider interactions of waste within the urban sociotechnical system are explored under Section 3. This section also outlines the broader framework and essential elements of urban waste governance, planning and management before discussing systemic challenges under prevalent urbanisation scenario. Understanding of systemic challenges is reinforced with the case of Delhi NCT, under Section 4, which assesses the situation in Delhi NCT along the supply chain of solid waste management services. Section 5 discusses various solutions for urban solid waste management including social, economic and technological interventions. A ward level implementation framework is suggested for Delhi NCT, building on the strengths and opportunities inherent in existing system. In addition, challenges pertaining local adaptation of commercially available technologies are discussed, and compared against key decision variables which are important to urban policymakers. This study is especially relevant in wake of solid waste policy which is currently being deliberated by national government and would consequently be translated to state and local level. Study outlines development drivers, policy instruments, enabling institutions, technologies for urban solid waste management and brings them all together into a cohesive framework to make recommendations for an implementation focussed planning and management of solid waste in urban India.

Draft, not for citation

Contents 1. Background: Solid Waste Management Situation in Urban India ......................................................1 2. Policies, Regulation & Enabling Institutions ......................................................................................5 3. System Approach for Tackling Urban Solid Waste ............................................................................9 4. Solid Waste Management in Delhi National Capital Territory (NCT) ............................................ 16 4.1 Demographic Details and Governance Structures ..................................................................... 16 4.2 Solid Waste Generation and Collection ..................................................................................... 20 4.3 Transportation, Treatment and Disposal of Solid Waste ........................................................... 27 5. Solutions for Managing Urban Solid Waste Sustainably ................................................................. 33 5.1 Policy Instruments for Urban Waste Management .................................................................... 34 5.1.1 Quantity-based User Charges or Pay as You Throw (PaYT) ............................................ 34 5.1.2 Deposit-Refund (D-R) System ........................................................................................... 36 5.1.3 Packaging Regulations ..................................................................................................... 36 5.1.4 Product Input Taxes and Recycling Credits ..................................................................... 37 5.1.5 Landfill/ Incineration Taxes and Superfunds .................................................................. 38 5.2 Sustainable Production and Consumption ................................................................................. 38 5.2.1 Design for Environment and Extended Producers’ Responsibility (EPR) ...................... 39 5.2.2 Zero Waste Communities ................................................................................................. 40 5.3 Enabling Institutions for a Social Change.................................................................................. 40 5.3.1 Capacity building of Urban Local Bodies: Waste planning, Open Data and Social Innovation .................................................................................................................................... 40 5.3.2 Closing the loop: Role of Recycling Targets and Informal Sector Integration ............... 45 5.4 Proposed Framework for Ward level Implementation in Delhi NCT ........................................ 47 5.5 Technologies for Urban Waste Management: Local adaptation and financial sustainability .................................................................................................................................... 48 5.5.1. Biological Conversions ..................................................................................................... 51 5.5.2 Thermo-chemical Conversions ......................................................................................... 53 5.5.3 Other Technology Options ................................................................................................ 55 6. Conclusion and way forward ........................................................................................................... 57 References ............................................................................................................................................ 59

Draft, not for citation

1. Background: Solid Waste Management Situation in Urban India Solid waste is a negative externality of consumption and production in society. Urban solid waste remains a gargantuan challenge for cities in India. Mega cities such as Delhi and Mumbai generate several thousand tonnes of solid waste every day and majority of this is diverted to already overstressed and unscientifically managed landfills in cities (HPEC 2011). A large part of waste disposed to landfills can be diverted for recycling, composting and energy/ material recovery; closing the loop between generation of waste and production of consumables and reducing wide ecological and socioeconomic impacts of waste (Figure 2). City authorities and citizens need to ask- whether this enormous amount of solid waste can be diverted towards more useful and sustainable activities such as reuse or material and energy recovery? Per capita availability of land in India’s cities is much lower than cities in China and the US. Suitable waste management practices can relieve the land stress and minimise land degradation while reducing the original consumption of raw materials by diverting some of this demand to consumption of recycled products or recovered materials (Figure 3). The cost of inaction on solid waste is huge. USEPA superfund data reveals that US needs to spend 1-5 billion per year for 50 years (USD 200-1000 / person or USD 4-20/ person-year), to clean up the uncontrolled landfill sites that received hazardous waste from industry between 1950 to 1970 (UNEP and ISWA 2015). Cities benefit from agglomeration effects of economy and are capable of contributing highly to the economic development. At the same time, due to densification and high consumption levels; cities generate more waste than rural dwellers, per unit of area and per person. It was estimated that per capita consumption of urban residents in India was double of rural dwellers (Hoornweg and Thomas 1999). Impacts of solid waste are wide ranging (figure 1) and affect all spheres of sustainability i.e. economic, social and environmental sustainability. These impacts result from interaction of solid waste with the land, water, air systems and waste handlers in absence of proper management. Majority of these impacts are responsible for adversely affecting health of urban dwellers, especially the urban poor involved in recycling activities, leading to poor quality of life in cities. Poor management of urban growth exacerbates challenges posed by waste. Due to high density of urban settlements, waste leads to very high environmental pressures on local ecosystem. Although there are no comprehensive data on waste generation (Zhu et al. 2008), Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO) estimates that urban India generated nearly 36 million tonne solid waste i.e. 100,000 tonne solid waste per day in 2000 (CPHEEO 2000). Out of this, 30,000 tonnes per day or 30% was generated in 59 cities surveyed by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) which include metro cities and State capitals (CPCB 2012). There are varying estimates on total quantum of urban waste

1

Draft, not for citation

generation at present. On higher range, urban India is estimated to generate more than 100 million tonne solid waste per year in 2015, which amounts to a generation rate of 274, 000 tonnes solid waste per day (Balasubramanian 2015). This is slightly higher than the projected waste generation from public sources wherein 160,000 tonne USW per day is estimated to be produced in 2009 (214,000 tonne urban solid waste/ day in 2015) with an annual growth of 5% (DEA 2009). The urban population in India has been growing at an average yearly growth rate of 3.5% for past six decades (Census 2001). Higher growth in waste generation is due to combined effect of fast pace of urbanisation and rising per capita waste generation (due to rising incomes and change in consumption behaviour as a result). Result of this combined effect can be seen in Figure 1 (lower left). CPHEEO calculates the average generation for urban India in 2000 to be 0.46 kg/person and projects that it will increase to 0.70 kg/person by 2026 (CPHEEO 2000) indicating an annual growth rate of nearly 1.5%. In Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)’s survey of 59 major cities, average generation in cities varies from 0.17 kg/capita in relatively smaller cities in India’s North East to up to 0.62 kg/capita in metro cities (CPCB 2012). OECD countries have highest waste generation globally at current rate of 2.2 kg/capita/day. Average generation of higher income countries is around 1.5 kg/capita/year (Figure 1, upper left) and this contributes to about half of the waste generated globally (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata 2012; Modak et al. 2012). Although the average per capita waste generation in India is much lower than the global average (at 1.2 kg/capita/day), the quantum of total waste generated is speculated to increase by 3-4 times in the period 2012-2025 (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata 2012) and will surpass total waste generation in US by 2025 (Medina 2010). Collection in major metro cities varies from 70% to 90%, whereas in several smaller cities, it remains well below 50% (CPHEEO 2000). Due to lack of land resources for disposal, the collection efficiency of ULBs gets affected (CPHEEO 2000). As a result, open dumping and burning of waste remains rampant in Urban India, especially in case of unauthorised or unplanned settlements (including urban slums), which are not covered by municipality’s waste management services. As the urbanisation rate rises, the challenges of urban waste will also multiply, not merely due to rise in quantum of waste but also as a result of increasingly heterogeneous and complex nature of municipal waste streams (Modak et al. 2012; UNEP 2011). Hazardous waste streams such as e-waste, pesticides, asbestos, used-oil and item containing heavy metals present new threat to urban waste management (UNEP and ISWA 2015). International experience shows that with rise in urbanisation and per capita incomes, organic fractions and packaging waste (paper, cardboard, plastic, glass etc.) are bound to increase with an overall surge in consumption (Figure 1, upper right). Majority of the urban solid waste in India (91%) is dumped in uncontrolled landfills, with only minor fractions being scientifically disposed or treated for composting (DEA 2009). It is estimated that uncontrolled landfilling may burden urban land, which is a scarce resource in India’s cities, with additional 1250 km2 (DEA 2009) requirement for waste disposal by 2047. It is projected

2

Draft, not for citation

that the urbanisation1 rate in India will rise from 30% to nearly 50% during the same period (UN DESA 2014).

Figure 1 Waste generation and composition in countries with different incomes: upper left for percentage of different fractions and per capita generation; upper right for aggregate amounts of different fractions), Projection for Urban Solid Waste generation (lower left) and land requirement till 2031 (lower right) Source: CPHEEO 2000; DEA 2009; Census 2011; UNEP 2011; Modak et al. 2012; UN DESA 2014

Municipalities in India spend about 5-25% of their budget on solid waste management (Balasubramanian 2015). Higher range of this expenditure applies to mega cities like Delhi and Mumbai. Estimations for actual expenditure on waste management in cities vary widely and municipalities spend about ₹ 500-1500 per tonne solid waste (DEA 2009). 60-70% of this is spent on collection (mainly street sweeping) and 20-30% on transportation of waste (Balasubramanian 2015; CPHEEO 2000; DEA 2009) with very little or no funds is spent on treatment and scientific disposal of waste (DEA 2009). This is true for lower middle income countries where majority of municipal funds are directed towards collection of waste whereas high income countries spend less than 10% on collection and are characterised by up front 1

Globally urbanised population crossed 50% mark in 2008 (UN DESA 2014). India is at crossroad of urbanisation as last census calculates the urbanisation in India at 31.2 % (Census 2011) and it is projected to reach 50% in 2050. It is estimated that, if villages with populations over 5,000 and seemingly urban character (80-140 million people are estimated to be living in this zone), are defined to be included as part of urban India, urbanisation in India could be much higher, at 40% (IIHS 2011).

3

Draft, not for citation

community participation which reduces costs and increases options for recycling, composting etc. (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata 2012). Due to non-existent waste management fees cities recover less than 50 per cent of the O&M cost (HPEC 2011). A regional clustering approach has shown significant promise, for state-wide implementation of integrated waste management plans and financial burden sharing. 159 ULBs in Gujarat with 7.7 million urbanites and solid waste generation at 0.9 million tonne have shown to reduce costs significantly through sharing of waste processing/ disposal facilities among ULBs. It was estimated that regional clustering approaches can be reduce the combined costs by up to 70%. This practice has been formalised as part of new solid waste legislation (Section 2) so that urban agglomerations can be helped by state agencies by developing and utilising common facilities for waste processing and disposal. Public health led to emergence of formalised collection systems globally (Wilson 2007). In addition to resulting health and environmental impacts, solid waste contributes to the global warming due to methane2 emissions from uncontrolled landfilling practices and climate change is also emerging as a key driver for development of waste management (Wilson 2007). Globally, waste contributes to nearly 5% to GHG emissions systems (UNEP and ISWA 2015). It is estimated that solid waste landfilling in cities contributes to 80% of methane emissions (Rawat and Ramanathan 2011) in the country due to due to lack of other options for waste disposal. Climate change has emerged as new development driver of waste management (Wilson 2007) and carbon financing extends to interventions . Currently, there are a total 40 projects (UNFCCC 2016) in India which are registered for Certified Emission Reduction (CER) under Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). CDM project database reveals that estimated emission reduction resulting from these projects is 2.1 million tonne CO2e with nearly 40% of certified emission reductions from Delhi alone. India still lags behind other emerging economies in tapping the full potential of CDM in reducing emissions from waste sector. China, Brazil and Mexico have respectively 161, 133 and 132 registered CDM projects (UNFCCC 2016) under waste handling and disposal category3. Also, It is debated that, carbon finance, in absence of a robust waste management system with no policy emphasis on resource conservation or formal provisions of upstream waste management strategies, can lead to disastrous effects on informal recycling economy and livelihood for urban poor.

2

Global warming potential (GWP) of methane is 25 gCO2/g (100 years) and it has 12 years lifetime in atmosphere (IPCC 2007) 3 CERs in China, Brazil and Mexico amount to 16 million tonne CO2e, 18 million tonne CO2e and 6 million tonne CO2e respectively.

4

Draft, not for citation

2. Policies, Regulation & Enabling Institutions Policy and strategies are given body through their translation into legislation and other instruments to support implementation (UNEP and ISWA 2015). Governance of waste in India is mainly driven by regulatory regimes4 whereas the policy and planning is largely absent at national, state or local level. Public health has been a key driver for development of solid waste management in India while environmental protection is still a weak driver due to prevalent uncontrolled landfilling and open burning practices. ‘Resource value of waste’ has been another key driver for waste management from beginning. Informal sector proliferated in cities as a result, despite no formal policy emphasis or action on resource conversation from political regimes until now. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change is empowered by Environment Protection Act, 1986 to providing the regulatory framework for managing municipal solid waste and various other waste types in India. The first waste management regulation came into force in India after outbreak of an epidemic in Surat in 1994, from poor management of urban solid waste, which resulted in 693 reported cases and 56 deaths. Following this event, Bajaj High Powered Committee and Asim Burman Expert Committee made several recommendations to Government of India which were then formalised into set of guiding principles as Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules 2000 (Talyan, Dahiya, and Sreekrishnan 2007). Under MSW 2000, municipal authorities or local governments are responsible for majority of operations for waste management in the city. These include planning, design, implementation and management of waste related operations including collection, storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of waste in cities. Local bodies are mandated with charting out plans for waste management in their respective jurisdiction area and notify the collection and segregation system to all waste generators. It is responsibility of waste generators to avoid littering and ensure delivery of waste in compliance with collection and segregation system as notified by their respective municipalities. It is also a duty of ULBs to conduct citizen awareness and community participation programmes through regular meetings with local RWAs, NGOs etc. for waste segregation5, and promoting recycling and reuse. It is the responsibility of local bodies to ensure safety and well-being of workers and general public all along the chain of solid waste handling which includes prohibiting manual handling of waste. It is the responsibility of local bodies to make sure that landfilling is restricted only to non-biodegradable and inert waste which is not suitable for recycling and biological processing. Biomedical and industrial waste streams are prohibited to be mixed with MSW under MSW rules 2000. The criteria set by MSW rules 2000 were to be implemented by 2003 as per the Supreme Court’s judgement. Unfortunately, these have not 4

MSW Rules 2000 (until now) and urban sanitation byelaws Municipal authority shall organise phased programme to ensure community participation in waste segregationregular meeting (quarterly) with representatives of local RWAs and NGOs 5

5

Draft, not for citation

been fulfilled by cities till date and overall compliance to MSW rules- 2000 remains very low, especially processing and scientific disposal of waste (HPEC 2011), as a result of apathy of municipalities, lack of community involvement, lack of technical know-how and inadequate financial resources (DEA 2009; IIHS 2011; Talyan, Dahiya, and Sreekrishnan 2007; Zhu et al. 2008). New municipal solid waste management rules (MoEFCC 2015) were proposed by the MOEFCC in 2015 after an earlier draft in 2013. They were notified by MoEFCC as Solid Waste Management Rules 2016 at the time of writing of this report and replace existing MSW legislation. New legislation extends beyond municipalities to urban agglomerations, census towns, area under India Railways and airport authorities, SEZs, industrial towns etc. All residential housing societies with more than 200 dwelling units and commercial or institutional areas exceeding plot area 5000 m2 are supposed to earmark space for sorting, storage and decentralised treatment (MoEFCC 2016c). These rules categorically state sourcesegregation of waste as essential duty of waste generators and require segregation into three streams- “biodegradable or wet”, “non-biodegradable or dry recyclables” and “domestic hazardous waste” before handing it over to municipal collection system (MoEFCC 2015, 2016b). This brings to halt, the speculations whether segregation will be essential requirement for all waste generators and is a positive sign towards implementation of better waste management in cities. New rules propose to include contaminated paint drums, tube lights, used Ni-Cd Batteries, used needle/ syringes etc. as part of domestic hazardous waste stream while the sanitary napkin/ pads, tampons, diapers, condoms, menstrual cups etc. must be securely wrapped and disposed along with non-biodegradable waste. Some attention is required here as it seems that the new rules seem to partly combine the disposable and recyclable waste streams to some extent. They miss two key facts that, mixed disposable waste stream cannot be eliminated completely to begin with and waste handler will be exposed to health risks as domestic sanitation waste gets mixed with the recyclables. Rules neglect the disposable (non-recyclable and mixed) waste stream altogether which might be detrimental to success of household segregation drives. Although with the robust recycling information to waste generators and strong policy measures on extended producers’ responsibility, it is possible to reduce the disposable (mixed) waste stream, but even then, there will a small indispensable fraction of residual waste that is not separable, especially when we do not have strong regulatory regimes for extended producers’ responsibility and packaging waste in the city. Municipalities will still have to deal with the disposable mixed waste till then. Additionally, who is to make sure that households are securing the sanitation waste well so that it does not undermine the health of informal workers involved in recycling activities? To promote material recycling/ recovery and to have efficient recycling, it is absolutely imperative that recyclables are stored as a separate stream and are not contaminated by other types of waste such domestic sanitation or hazardous waste. For more details, see Section 4.4 for an alternate collection system which is proposed under this study and is aimed at relatively effortless and efficient recycling of materials.

6

Draft, not for citation

New rules feature focus on resource conservation, local adaptation of technology and landfill diversion, as significant additions to earlier rules. Composting and biomethanation have been prescribed for Biodegradable fractions and it is suggested that the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers should promote city compost using co-marketing with chemical fertilisers. Also, the Ministry of agriculture should set up laboratories for testing quality of compost produced by local authorities or agencies (MoEFCC 2016c). Rules propose direct transfer of inert waste to the disposal sites and promote local treatment of the yard waste. They prescribe addition of new incineration based Waste-to-energy (WtE) capacities only for non–recyclable waste fractions of waste, having calorific value higher than 1000 kCal, and bar landfilling of non-recyclable waste streams with calorific value higher than 15000 kCal in favour of WtE and processing for Refuse derived fuel (RDF). Given the poor track record of ULBs in complying with the rules, there is no indication of what will be the consequences for ULBs to not adhere to these rules. Whether there will be incentives and disincentives for ULBS to meet and not meet the rules, doesn’t find any explicit mention. Throughout the rules, there is a strong emphasis on user fees (which are to be notified in urban byelaws) to be paid by waste generators for strengthening financial sustainability of ULB’s waste management operations but implementation of the same is not clear i.e. whether there will be flat fees or variable fees which promote sustainable behaviour among waste generators (See Section 5.5.1 for more details). It is important that ULBs design the fees in such a way that they promote sustainable behaviour and dis-incentivise any unsustainable behaviour. The informal recycling sector has gained recognition from new rules and will be eligible to collect recyclables either at source of generation or at material recycling facilities (MoEFCC 2015). Rules mention integration as a responsibility of States and self-help groups (MoEFCC 2016c) and prescribe schemes for registration of waste pickers and dealers. Rule mention that manufacturers of glass, tin and plastic packaging etc. or band owners who introduce such products in the market, will have to provide necessary financial assistance to ULBs for setting up waste management system (MoEFCC 2016a). They prescribe regular water quality monitoring in 50 metres periphery around landfill sites, monitoring of compost quality and mention that SPCBs or PCCs may install pollution monitoring devices for WtE plants, if necessary. Capacity building, training, technical and financial assistance to ULBs, research and development, national level solid waste policy and periodic review of state measures are key responsibilities of MoUD as listed in new rules (MoEFCC 2016b). Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO), a technical wing of Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD), maintains a detailed manual aimed at helping the ULBs to implement and operationalise various aspects of MSW rules. MoUD is nodal ministry for urban development aspects of water supply, sanitation and municipal solid waste management. CPHEEO formulates guidelines for these sectors and its key role is to advice states and ULBs on technical and financial matters. MOUD also sets benchmarks for service delivery in cities

7

Draft, not for citation

and takes periodic evaluation these in cities. A new draft manual for MSW management is being prepared by CPHEEO at the moment (CPHEEO 2014) which will supplement the new MSW rules notified in 2016. MoUD is given the responsibility for formulation of National policy on solid waste in consultation with stakeholders within 6 months period (MoEFCC 2016d). National policy serves as guiding tool for states and ULBs. State Urban Development Departments (UDDs), ULBs, and village Panchayats of census towns and urban agglomerations are mandated to come up with the state policy and strategy for solid waste management, within a year, in consultation with waste pickers, self-help groups, and other relevant stakeholders (MoEFCC 2016d). As land is a state subject, state UDD and Urban Development Authorities are endowed with various responsibilities connected to land such as- identification and allocation of suitable land parcels for waste processing plants and landfills, ensuring separate space for waste sorting/ segregation/ decentralised processing with developers, residential welfare or market associations, institutions and commercial areas, and notify buffer zones around landfills/ processing plants with waste receiving capacity greater than 5 tonne per day (MoEFCC 2016b). Schemes for registration of waste pickers or dealer are also responsibility of state. As far as solid waste legislation is concerned, new rules provide a good framework and deliver strong signals to ULBs for moving toward sustainable solid waste management practices but their success will be measured by, how well they are implemented by ULBs which is yet to be seen. Institutional arrangements within states and at local level which have proved to be ineffective in implementation of previous rules are essentially the same. To monitor implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) rules 2016, MoEFCC has proposed formation of Central Monitoring Committee under the MoEFCC which will meet once a year to monitor overall implementation of rules (MoEFCC 2016a). Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has the role of monitoring ULBs and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB) or Pollution Control Committees (PCCs) for implementation of SWM rules. ULBs report to the state pollution control boards on yearly basis on progress and status of solid waste management. SPCBs also directly involved in implementing the stricter regimes for hazardous waste streams such as biomedical and electronic waste, wherein treatment and processing for hazardous wastes is implemented by certified handlers of such waste in ULB jurisdictions. Apart from enforcement and implementation of rules, SPCB sanction operation of such facilities and landfill sites on yearly basis. While CPCBs authorisations are necessary to operate municipal waste processing and disposal facilities, which are to be scientifically designed as per the MSW Rules, it is found that the compliance for scientific disposal of MSW in the country is almost zero percent (HPEC 2011). It is reported that these form major source of income for SPCBs, as a result of which, there is resistance to reform consent or authorisation processes (CSE 2014). Pressure on SPCBs or PCCs for issuing consents and authorisation is so high that monitoring and enforcement capacities of SPCBs suffer as a result (CSE 2014). It is reported that less than one percent hazardous waste samples are tested (CSE 2014). Also, the High Power Expert Committee

8

Draft, not for citation

(HPEC) for estimating the investment requirements for urban infrastructure services recommended formulation of new urban utility regulators with the states in 2011 (HPEC 2011) but there is no progress in this direction. Urban Utility Regulator will ensure that service standards are met and that user charges cover costs within a framework which is spelt out in a transparent manner. In wake of solid waste policy and implementing any economic policy instruments demand for urban utility become seven more relevant and it can also share some of the monitoring roles that SPCBs fulfil at present.

3. System Approach for Tackling Urban Solid Waste Solid waste may lead to an array of impacts on local economy, society and ecosystems in cities. These impacts are wide ranging. We outline 13 such socio-economic and environmental impacts from solid waste in cities as represented in Figure 2. These impacts have been traced back to their primary causes in the figure. The list is representative at best for urban India as impact may vary from a city to city as per the prevailing local conditions such its geography, agro-climatic zone and nature of waste in case of an industrial town. Some of these impacts have been quantified in existing literature while others are unquantifiable due to lack of data. It is found that in addition to methane emissions, uncontrolled landfilling including open dumping and burning of waste leads release of several other pollutants such as aldehydes, particulate matter/ black carbon, hydrogen sulphide, carbon dioxide, VOCs, ammonia, SOx, NOx and various other trace gases (Kumar and Sil 2015). Impacts from illegal and uncontrolled landfilling include health risks for the waste handlers and stray animals including birds, fire hazard at landfills and surrounding areas, anaesthetic conditions and resulting decline in property values. Methane and black carbon (BC) are major emissions occurring from uncontrolled landfilling and burning of waste respectively. While methane causes ozone formation close to the ground under high temperature conditions, black carbon is responsible for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), both of which are detrimental to local environment and health. Global warming potential of BC is found to be 9~30 times higher than methane over standard 100-year time horizon (IPCC 2007). Methane emissions from landfills have received much attention whereas BC emissions and its impacts are not well documented and understood (UNEP and ISWA 2015).

9

Draft, not for citation

Figure 2 Mapping of socio-economic and environmental impacts from solid waste in urban areas to their sources Source: CEEW 2016

Poor management of waste (and urban growth, in general) combined with lack of source segregation and uncontrolled landfilling leads to array of problems including very high levels of health impacts, especially for formal and informal labour engaged in waste handling activities in cities. In most of the Indian cities, waste is simply being transported from one place to another by local governments. Management strategies, especially the upstream waste management strategies, are not given much importance that they deserve. Upstream management strategies act either before the waste is generated e.g. prevention and minimisation strategies, avoiding mixing of recyclable materials into the disposable waste stream6 or immediate diversions of waste for direct use at the source (e.g. recycling programmes, home or community composting etc.). This leads to more environmental and socio-economic benefits than achieved by solely pursuing the conventional downstream strategies which include central treatment plants and landfilling. They reduce load on already burdened local bodies (minimises the waste evacuation and transportation requirements) and

6

Disposable waste may include inert waste such as dust from sweeping, small amount of non-recyclables items from mixed material that can’t be segregated further and the sanitation waste

10

Draft, not for citation

minimises the environmental pressures through reduced disposal needs and inputs of primary or virgin materials. Managing waste therefore inherently means managing consumption and production. The supply chain of urban solid waste management is depicted in where different actors including producer and consumers (or generators of waste) are depicted. Figure 3

Figure 3 Urban sociotechnical system depicting supply chain of solid waste management with social groups at different levels Source: CEEW 2016

Social actors, who are engaged through the supply chain of solid waste management, can be categorised into three groups. They are groups based on their contribution or role in urban waste management. Importance of these three groups for targeted policy emphasis is briefly described below1. The Producers’ group includes producers or manufacturers can significantly leverage the waste scenario in urban India by adopting sustainable practices. Mechanisms for inducing sustainable producer behaviour can either be voluntary or can be enforced through regulation by central/state governments and local authorities.

11

Draft, not for citation

It is found that market based instruments, regulation and public-private partnerships yield better results than voluntary mechanisms (See Section 5 for more details). 2. The Consumers’ group includes residents, institutions and enterprises who are consumers of goods and services in the city, generate waste in commensurate with their consumption behaviour. Their responsibility as generators of waste is huge. This has recently been acknowledged in the latest MSW rules. Internet forums, consumer associations/ retailers, Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) for urban settlements, market associations, ward level committees, associations for local businesses etc. can serve as focal points of communication with consumer groups and are essential for adopting participatory approaches which are vital for success of any segregation or recycling programme. Retailers and consumer associations act as a critical link between producers and consumers, can leverage this position to raise consumer awareness for making sustainable choices and inducing positive changes in consumption behaviour. 3. Waste-handlers’ group includes various actors who are involved at one or more stages of urban solid waste management which include collection, recycling, recovery, transportation, treatment and final disposal of waste. Depending upon the legal status of their work they can divided further into two groups. Formal waste handlers include municipalities, private companies, formal recycling/ recovery units and non-government organisations (NGOs) working in the waste sector. Informal waste handlers include Waste collectors involved in door to door collection of household waste, itinerant buyers (kabadiwala), rag-pickers, scrap-dealers, illegal/ informal dismantling and recycling units etc. Waste governance in cities can be achieved through a combination of downstream and upstream policy instruments, which can influence behaviour of different social groups, as shown on top sociotechnical system for urban waste in Figure 3. This is done with the help of a strong legislation which clearly establishes roles of different stakeholders or social groups including public institutions. The Waste governance is further expanded and elaborated in Figure 4. Clearly, deriving from the impacts of waste in urban environment (Figure 4), three overriding goals of waste management are public health, environment preservation and natural resource conservation. To meet these goals, it is desirable to minimise landfilling in the cities and to minimise resource extraction by promoting reuse and recycling of materials. This is the goal of upstream and downstream policy instruments as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. These policy instruments are elaborated under Section 5. The downstream policy instruments such as quantity based charges, landfill taxes, deposit-refund systems seek to induce a behavioural change in consumers by dis-incentivising wasteful use of resources or incentivising sustainable behaviours and practices. Upstream instruments such as product input taxes, extended producers’ responsibility, recycling credits etc. act before the waste is

12

Draft, not for citation

produced and promote sustainability among producer groups. The net combined effect of one or more such instruments is to minimise final disposal of materials and return them to the material feedback loop so that the gap between production and consumption processes is closed. Waste governance, in this way, aims to establish as closed loop system as visualised in Figure 3 which is desirable from material sustainability or resource conservation perspective. Abiotic products, which are returned back for recycling, meet part of material demand for manufacturers. Same is true for biotic products or biodegradable waste fractions, which when composted carefully (See Section 5.5.1), lead to closed loop system with essential plant nutrients feeding back into the biosphere.

Figure 4 Waste governance indicating key goals, guiding principles, legislation and policy instruments Source: CEEW 2016

System approach is essential for avoiding long-term infrastructure lock-in and addressing sustainability (social, environmental and economic) at its core in cities. System wide impacts of different waste management strategies would translate into, sustainable producer

13

Draft, not for citation

behaviour (minimal resource extraction) and sustainable consumption (minimal disposal of waste), thus closing the loop between production and consumption processes in cities. For this purpose, waste policy needs to interact and influence all the actors involved in supply chain of SWM, as described above. Hierarchy of waste management strategies is important (Figure 13, Section 5.3) and if waste prevention prior to management (collection, recycling/ recovery) and landfill diversion is policy focus from beginning, the future management challenges related to large quantum of waste in India’s cities can be effectively managed. Before waste management planning becomes a norm in India’s cities, systemic challenges and barriers, listed and discussed below, need to be carefully deliberated and addressed by cities. 1. Annual time-series data for solid waste flows and their characteristics or composition, at different stages of SWM supply chain (more importantly at different sources e.g. households and businesses) are not well maintained by municipalities. Implementing different waste management strategies and planning for waste related infrastructure requires data in order to evaluate performance of interventions and to determine next set of targets and infrastructure options. For instance, to measure progress of waste minimisation strategies in a city, one would need yearly time-series data on waste generation per capita (in kg-SW/ capita). Such monitoring and evaluation processes are not well established within urban governance bodies and there is a need for capacity building of municipal bodies. This also results in lack of region-specific management strategies to deal with the urban waste e.g. the data explained above can help answering some of the important questions like- what are the recycling targets to be set by different cities? What are the local factors that need to be taken into account? What is the ideal portfolio of treatment technologies which can successfully be adapted for a city? 2. Income, affordability, community attitudes and density distribution in cities need to be mapped as settlements with different densities and different level of affordability require very different kind of infrastructure. Also, the citywide population dynamics, floating populations and migration patterns are important. These can help cities understand and answer some of the questions like- How is the quantum of waste generated going to rise in foreseeable future? How is it going to become more diverse, with rise in income in a foreseeable future? How different policy instruments can promote waste reduction, reuse and recycling and dis-incentivise landfilling? 3. There are thousands of informal workers in a mega city who collect recyclables like metal, glass, plastic, cardboard etc. and sell them upstream for livelihood. In addition, there are small enterprises, engaged in material recovery activities. Their contribution is not formally recognised by urban governance bodies in majority of cities and lack of safety tools and training adversely affects their health and productivity. In absence

14

Draft, not for citation

of any valuation of yearly contribution of informal recycling activities, their contribution is likely to go unnoticed. This is also partly as a result of no formal policy emphasis on material recycling or resource conservation by national or local governments. As a result of above two reasons, the economy of informal sector is not very clear in cities. Planning for waste management in the city cannot be complete without taking account of this large informal recycling sector. Municipalities and residents need to ask, how these urban poor and marginalised sections of society who are engaged in recycling activities, can benefit from local policies that attempt to harmonise the function of municipalities and informal sector. 4. Local conditions such as ward-level availability of land for building different kinds of infrastructure (small composting or biomethanation plant, collection system, material recovery facilities etc.), mapping of groundwater sources are important factors to be considered for planning processes to avoid any foreseeable ecological damage. Land should be considered as an important parameter for planning waste management in cities. Additionally, in mega cities of India where land is scarce resource, settlements with no or limited land availability may benefit from pooling its land resource with settlements that have ample land for building decentralised infrastructure. Regional intra-city clustering approach may be followed for buildings decentralised treatment infrastructure. 5. Quantification of ecological and health externalities arising from extant waste management practices in the cities is rarely taken into consideration by local authorities while designing new policies and planning new infrastructure. This requires consistent efforts for collecting public health information, in settlements near waste processing and landfill sites, over long periods of time. Informal nature of such settlements adds to this challenge. Such data collection drives will not just help quantifying negative externalities of existing practices; it can also establish and reinforce positive externalities of new practices. This also acts as a substantial input for municipalities while imputing external social and environment costs to solid waste for calculating of waste management charges and implementing some of the waste related policy interventions. Additionally, the cost-benefit assessment of various waste management programmes and treatment options is not available with local bodies, partly as a result of what is explained above and partly as a result of missing information as explained under preceding discussion points. As a result, cities find it hard to choose options for handling and treating the waste appropriately. If the cities start piloting and implementing some of the interventions or solutions (as discussed under Section 5) for addressing the growing waste menace, it becomes even more important that information on waste is collected and updated at regular intervals, in a way that it is possible to monitor the progress made under such interventions. This is also critical

15

Draft, not for citation

for planning future infrastructure e.g. deciding the incineration or incineration based WtE capacities based on calorific values of disposable waste streams, deciding the extent of biological treatments based on quantity and nutrient balance of organic fractions from different source, deciding extent of decentralised treatment (such as composting and biomethanation) based on local land availability.

4. Solid Waste Management in Delhi National Capital Territory (NCT) 4.1 Demographic Details and Governance Structures In this section, we assess the case of Delhi- National Capital Territory (NCT), particularly the larger Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) area which constitutes more than 97% Delhi population. Delhi is the most urbanised (97.5%) state in India (MoUD 2015) and leading destination for net rural-urban migration, mainly from Utter Pradesh, Bihar and Haryana (IIHS 2011). Rapid growth, overcrowding, unplanned expansion of built environment and urban sprawling are characteristic of urbanisation phenomenon in Delhi. Population in Delhi grew with nearly 2% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) during last census period to 16 million in 20117 with 45% growth owing to population migration (Census 2001, 2011; DDA 2007). Population is expected to reach as high as 22.5 million in 2021 and 50% of this growth is expected from migration (DDA 2007). IIHS estimated, using remote sensing data, that the population and built-up in peri-urban area of Delhi increased significantly8 in period from 2000 to 2010 (IIHS 2011). Whereas the average population density of Delhi NCT is little over ten thousand, it varies very widely at the wards9 level within the city. Ward densities range from few hundred persons/ km2 (and population of a 16.7 thousand residents10) to 5.8711 lakh persons/km2. Although the most populated ward has 1.512 lakh residents. Main demographic characteristics of Delhi wards (Figure 5) are highlighted in Table 1. Delhi has a total of 4085 colonies (Figure 6) out of which 1653 were still unauthorised colonies13 and 368 are urban/ rural villages (MVC 2010). Municipal valuation committee categorises these colonies from A to H depending upon valuation of properties. Colonies, categorised as A and B (5% of all colonies), cover up to 20% city area and make 33% contributions to revenue. 7

In last five census periods, from 1951 to 2001, Delhi population grew at CAGR 4.23% (GNCTD 2015) It is estimated that population and built-up outside ULB was 50% and 100% respectively in proportion to same inside the ULB, in contrast to situation in 1990 and 2000 when the same figures stood at 20-25% and 100% respectively (IIHS 2011). Larger increase in built-up is due to significantly lower built-up density outside ULB. 9 Ward is smallest unit for municipal administration 10 Chhawala ward in Nazafgarh zone (2011) 11 Nehru Vihar ward in Shahdara North zone (2011) 12 Mukund Pur ward in Civil lines zone (2011) 13 Unauthorised colonies include JJ constructions/Slum/Refugee Settlements. By 2011, 779 such unauthorised colonies have been regularised, whereas 1653 still remained unauthorised 8

16

Draft, not for citation

Colonies labelled C, D and E (16% of all colonies) cover 40% of the area and generate 42% of revenues whereas F and G (79% of all colonies) which are largely unplanned constructions cover as much as 40% of the area and contribute 25% revenues (MVC 2010).

North MCD

EDMC

NDMC DCB

SDMC

Figure 5 Wide ranges are observed in ward densities (2011) of 272 wards belonging to larger 14 MCD area Source: CEEW 2016; Census 2011

14

ward map for city was recreated using mapmyindia, 2015 (http://alpha.mapmyindia.com/mcdApp/)

17

Draft, not for citation

Ward level demographic characteristics (2011) Population [person] 2

Densities [person/km ] 2

Area [km ]

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Median

14,662

1,49,048

60,180

55,170

186

5,87,100

40,486

29,176

0.14

79

5

2

Table 1 Main features of 272 wards in Delhi NCT (2011)

Source: CEEW 2016; Census 2011

Delhi NCT is governed by five different local bodies, brief details for which are captured as below. The waste generation and demographic characteristics of these five urban local bodies are outlines in the Table 2. 1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) was trifurcated into three bodies in 2011 on the grounds of better service deliverya. North Delhi Municipal Corporation (North DMC15) comprising six administrative zones within MCD area namely City, Civil Lines, Sadar Paharganj, Karol Bagh, Rohini and Narela (twelve administrative zones within MCD area are depicted in Figure 7) b. South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) comprising four administrative zones namely Central, South, West and Najafgarh c. East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) comprising two administrative zones namely Shahdara North and Shahdara South The jurisdiction area of three ULBs/ MCD is spread over 1397.30 km2 area (DPCC 2014; UDD 2006). Conservation and Sanitary Engineering (CSE) Department under the Department of Environmental Management Service (DEMS) manages the solid waste and storm water drainages in the MCD areas. Three ULBs cater to 16 million populations (nearly 4 million households) (Census 2011). 2. New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC)’s jurisdiction area is Lutyen’s Delhi in the heart of city. Government of India is nearly the sole landowner in this area and owns up to 80% of the buildings in this area.(NDMC 2015) Private ownership of property in this area is marginal. NDMC is spread over 42.75 km2 area (UDD 2006). The 15

North DMC is used here to avoid confusion with the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC). Also, the larger area comprising North DMC, SDMC and EDMC is referred to as MCD area.

18

Draft, not for citation

health department under NDMC takes care of the solid waste management in the area. NDMC area has highest waste generation per capita in the city and is second least dense area located in the heart of city (Table 2). The floating population in this part of city is at least 10 times the total residing population (DPCC 2014). 3. Delhi Cantonment Board (DCB) is another special area in Delhi NCT like the NDMC. The health department under DCB takes care of the solid waste management in the area. DCB jurisdiction area is 42.97 km2 (UDD 2006) and it is the least dense area in entire Delhi NCT and has second highest level of waste generation after NDMC (Table 2). Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) is the monitoring agency for solid waste management in the city. Apart from monitoring ULBs, it directly implements management of hazardous waste streams such as biomedical and e-waste through certified waste handlers in the city. Although hazardous waste is not dealt in this study, it is extremely important precondition for an urban waste management system that hazardous wastes are kept out of MSW waste streams in cities. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) prepares master-plans for entire Delhi NCT area and allots land to ULBS for solid waste management facilities. The Department of Urban Development (UDD) of Government of National Capital Territory Delhi (GNCTD) plays an indirect role in SWM in the city by disbursing state grants to ULBS for managing waste in their jurisdiction area.

Urban Local

Population

Population

MSW Generation

Generation

Body

[persons]

Density [person/

2013-14

per capita

km2]

[tonne/day]

[g/capita/day]

North MCD

6.4 million

10,584

3,000

469

SDMC

5.6 million

9,392

2,500

446

EMCD

4.0 million

40,095

2,500

625

NDMC

275,000

6,433

300

1091

DCB

124,217

2,891

90

724

Table 2 Demographic and waste generation (2013-14) profiles of different ULBs in the city Source: CEEW; Census 2001; Census 2011; DPCC 2014

19

Draft, not for citation

North MCD

EDMC

NDMC DCB

SDMC

Figure 5 Colonies within the larger MCD area: black dot represent colonies with very high property value (colonies with affluent households), red dot represent colonies with property values in mid-ranges; yellow dots represent urban villages and unauthorised/unplanned colonies Source: CEEW; MVC 2010

4.2 Solid Waste Generation and Collection The city has diverse means by which municipal waste is collected from its source of generation. Table 3 lists sources of municipal solid waste in the city and provisions for its collection including different actors who are involved in SWM supply chain. Residential areas are biggest source of municipal solid waste in Delhi (54%), followed by shopping centres, vegetable/ fruit markets, industry, construction and hospitals respectively (Figure 7). Provisioning of MSW management services varies across communities in Delhi. The most prominent form of collection in place is door to door collection (DTDC) which facilitates collection of waste from households through the waste-pickers and their associations (on their own or engaged by Community Based Organisations (CBOs) such as RWAs or NGOs). It is reported that, out of 272 wards in Delhi, 232 wards (85%) have DTDC mechanism in place (MoUD 2016). It is not clear whether all the settlements under these 232 wards are covered under DTDC but it is clearly a prominent way of waste disposal in Delhi. It corroborates with findings of TERI’s environmental survey which reports that for 87% of the respondents waste

20

Draft, not for citation

is being collected at door step (TERI 2014). It was found that 35% respondents in city were willing to segregate. Additionally, 8% more found the mixing of waste by municipality to be hurdle in segregation. This implies that 43% residents might be willing to segregate, if municipalities had provisions for collection of segregated waste. This survey was conducted consistently for two years in 2013 and 2014 by TERI. Number of respondents, who are already segregating despite no provisions of separate collection by municipalities, had increased from 11% to 18% in a year (TERI 2013, 2014). There is no sign whether municipalities have taken cognisance of such resident surveys and whether they have tried to assess societal and environmental attitudes of city residents in their capacity. A large part of respondents who were not willing to segregate (26%) thought that it was municipality’s responsibility while the rest 31% thought it was either cumbersome or requires more space (TERI 2014). Currently, segregation of solid waste is predominantly a secondary activity, carried out by waste pickers who collect mixed waste at a nominal fee ranging from INR 50 to few hundred rupees per household. They subsequently sort waste for recyclables which are then sold to small or medium scrap dealers in the city. Disposable waste is discarded to MCD receptacles which include metal containers, dustbins, masonry structures called dhalaos and open dumping grounds (mainly for unplanned constructions and slums). Waste is evacuated by municipalities (or private contractors engaged by municipalities) from receptacles and transferred to final disposal sites. In several communities, there are alternate waste collection systems in place such as collection by municipal vehicles frequenting the community daily and direct disposal to the receptacles. In addition to the waste collectors, there are other waste pickers who are not part of DTDC drives but collect recyclables from open dumps, community bins, streets and landfills sites across the city. Households also separate recyclables which are sold to itinerant buyers or directly to the scrap dealers. Based on estimation by an NGO named SRISHTI, there are roughly 80,000-1,00,000 (Talyan, Dahiya, and Sreekrishnan 2007) waste pickers in the Delhi while the total number of itinerant buyers could be 18,000- 20,000 (Agarwal et al. 2005). Total social value added from informal waste recycling activities in Delhi was estimated to be INR 3,587 million in 2002-03, out of which INR 176 million are direct cost savings to the city administration (Hayami, Dikshit, and Mishra 2006). In addition, the positive externalities resulting from the natural resource conservation have much wider spill over impact beyond city confines and are difficult to establish (Hayami et al. 2006).

21

Draft, not for citation

MSW

WASTE

PRIMARY

SECONDARY

SOURCES

STREAM

COLLECTION

COLLECTION

FINAL TRANSFER

WASTE HANDLER

Disposable waste to community receptacles

Landfills & central treatment

Waste pickers & their unions; Residential welfare associations (RWAs), Municipality & private players

Dry recyclables to recycling dealers

Recycling and recovery units

Waste pickers & recycling dealers

Mixed & sourcesegregated waste

Door to door collection & sorting into recyclables & disposable waste

Mixed waste

Disposed directly to receptacles by households or businesses

Disposable waste at community receptacles including open dumpsites

Landfills & central treatment

Municipality & private players

Source separated recyclables

Itinerant buyers

Scrap dealers

Recycling and recovery units

Itinerant buyers & smallmedium scrap dealers

C&D waste

Privately engaged by waste generators

Dumpsites for C&D Debris

C&D recycling plants & landfill sites as a cover material

Public works department (PWD)

Streets

Inert waste, mixed waste (mainly packaging waste)

Road sweeping

Community receptacles including open dumpsites

Landfills & central treatment

Sanitation worker or safaikaramchari of municipalities (Municipality or private players)

Parks

Yard waste, mixed waste

Yard waste collection

Community receptacles including open dumpsites

Landfills & central treatment

Sanitation worker or safaikaramchari of municipalities (Municipality or private players)

Households, Institutions & Commercial areas

Table 3 Present municipal solid waste management system of Delhi with various social groups that are involved at different stages of downstream waste management Source: CEEW 2016

In addition to large informal labour, municipalities in Delhi employ more than 50,000 sanitation workers (Safai Karamchari) for keeping the streets of Delhi clean (DPCC 2014). The waste from cleaning the streets and yard waste from parks ends up in the same waste collection system and at times same receptacles maintained by municipalities which provide primary storage for waste from residential and commercial areas before it is evacuated by concerned municipality. Figure 7 shows number of receptacles in different administrative zones of Delhi for solid waste collection (DEMS 2015). The capacity of receptacles varies greatly depending on its configuration16 but each respectable act as a common collection point for a community. It is observed that collection system is not able to keep up with the growing city population and total number of receptacles in the city have declined from 1617 16

Whether it is metal containers (1 m3), dumper placers (4m3), open masonry structures (10 m3) or dhalao (50-72 m3) (Talyan, Dahiya, and Sreekrishnan 2007) 17 TERI calculated collection points in 2002 to be 16 /100,000 persons in 2002 (Talyan, Dahiya, and Sreekrishnan 2007)

22

Draft, not for citation

per 100,000 residents in 2002 to around 1118 per 100,000 residents in 201419. The zone wise MCD information also reveals that such collection points per 100,000 residents are highly disproportionate among different zones of the city, ranging from nearly 3 in Najafgarh to 26 in the south zone. Also, from Figure 6 and Figure 7, it can be observed that Najafgarh has predominantly F and G type of colonies i.e. mostly the unauthorised colonies and urban/rural villages where service delivery is poor and illegal dumping is rampant, whereas South has predominantly colonies ranging from A to E.

North DMC

EDMC

116

221

SDMC

Figure 6 Municipal receptacles in different administrative zones of the city (2015) Source: CEEW 2016; DEMS 2015

There are huge gaps for solid waste generation data in the city. Rapid and unplanned urban growth (as described under Section 4.1), combined with the haphazard management of land and groundwater resources (as described under Section 4.3) have led to the same. The city reportedly produced nearly 8390 tonnes/ day in 2013-14 (Table 2 and Figure 9) as reported in annual review reports submitted by ULBs to the state pollution control committee (DPCC 2014). Out of this, more than 90% was generated in larger MCD area, though generation rates are much higher in NDMC (more than double) and DCB areas (Table 2). Municipalities report that out of total solid waste generated in the city, 10-15% was taken out by rag-pickers 18

Calculated from zone-wise list of receptacle available online (DEMS 2015) and projected 2014 population This inference is based on an assumption that average size of all such collection points has not changed significantly since 2002 19

23

Draft, not for citation

and authorised agencies for recycling (DPCC 2014) which is based on expert opinion rather than an evaluation of informal sector activity. Research suggests that informal sector contributes to bringing up to 17% of waste to recycling units and informal workers continue working in highly polluting and unhealthy conditions (Agarwal et al. 2005), in absence of any formal recycling programmes in the city. 80-90% informal sector workers are illiterate and come from very poor strata of society (Hayami et al. 2006). The extent of collection and it calculation by public agencies is dependent on the waste generation rate and can only be as good as the generation rate data. The attitude of local bodies towards informal sector is expressed by the fact that the extent of solid waste which is managed by informal recycling sector in the city, though estimated to be 10-15%, does not form a part of overall waste collection in ULBs’ calculations (Figure 10). More discussions on recycling and informal sector will follow under section 5.3.2. While municipalities report total estimated generation at 8390 tonnes/day in 2014, the National Capital Region Planning Board (NCRPB)’s Regional Plan-2021 indicated generation at 9488 tonnes/day in 2001 itself and expresses concern over the lack of knowledge among ULBs in Delhi regarding quantum of waste that is generated in their respective jurisdiction areas (NCRPB 2005). MSW generation in Delhi is estimated using available data at hand which is not updated at regular intervals and the methodologies used to collect data are not well described or documented. CPCB’s 2004-05 survey of 59 cities reveals the average waste generation in Delhi to be 0.57 kg/capita/day (CPCB 2005). Delhi’s planning department estimates that the city generated waste at a rate 0.51 kg/capita/day in 2001 and projects that city would produce solid waste ranging up to 17,000 tonne/day 25,000 tonne/day (6.2-9.1 million tonne/year) by 2021(MOEF and GNCTD 2001). Assuming the population of 22.5 million in 2021, as per city master plan (DDA 2007), this would translate into per capita generation rate at 0.75-1.11 kg/day by 2021. Assuming that a moderate waste minimisation is achievable, Delhi Urban Environment and Infrastructure Improvement Project (DUEIIP) study recommends planning for a minimum 15,000 tonnes/day by 2021 and calculates the land requirement to be 8.1 km2 in period 2001-21. DUEIIP suggests that there is no shortage of public ownership of land but competing use for that land (MOEF and GNCTD 2001). For waste minimisation, planning envisions use of paper/cloth bags instead of plastic bags, decentralised composting, municipal collection system for recyclables and separate collection for large generators as ways to minimise waste in future (MOEF and GNCTD 2001). The city master plan subsequently projects waste quantum in 2021 at 15,750 tonne/day (5.75 million tonne/year) with an average generation of 0.68-0.70 kg/capita/day (DDA 2007; UDD 2006).

24

Draft, not for citation

Figure 7 Characterisation of MSW sources: composition of MSW in Delhi from various studies over time (upper left), contribution of different sources (upper right) and contribution of different sources to MSW generation (lower) in Delhi NCT (2004) Source: COWI & Kadam Environmental Consultants 2004; Talyan et al. 2007

Open dumping and burning is rampant in Delhi mainly due to lack of coverage of municipality service and low environmental awareness (Figure 9). There are many unplanned colonies, rural areas and JJ clusters where collection of MSW is not done (UDD 2006) and residents resort to open dumping of household waste. Unplanned colonies are characterised by high density, encroachment with very little or no space for developing any kind of new infrastructure. These will require different kind of provisions for waste collection than planned settlements.

25

Draft, not for citation

Figure 8 Smoke rises from an open waste dump on fire in Anand Parbat, Delhi on March 2016 (the side and front view of open dump) despite NGT ban Source: CEEW 2016

Figure 9 Waste quantities (tonne per day) at various stages of SWM supply chain as reported by municipal bodies to DPCC for year 2013-14. Source: CEEW; DPCC 2014; MCD 2015

26

Draft, not for citation

4.3 Transportation, Treatment and Disposal of Solid Waste Local bodies in Delhi currently utilise incineration based WtE and central composting plants in their portfolio of treatment solutions. Figure 10 depicts sources and sinks of municipal solid waste in the city. In 2014, waste from twelve different administrative zones in the city was diverted to WtE plant in Timarpur, four existing landfills and a marginal amount was sent to the centralised composting plant as shown in the figure. Actual site measurements reveal that total methane flux from three landfills existing prior to 2013 is found to be 0.54 Gg/year (Rawat and Ramanathan 2011) while the emissions from open dumping sites in Delhi remain unaccounted. There is no conclusive evidence on total number of open dumps existing in the city and extent of land degradation as a result of solid waste. Studies further indicate that under the current policies scenario total waste related methane emissions in Delhi could rise by 85% in period 20052025 and Delhi alone would contribute to 10% of total methane emission from MSW in India by 2020 (Talyan, Dahiya, Anand, et al. 2007). North DMC

EDMC

SDMC

Figure 10 Sources and sinks of municipal solid waste [thousand-tonne/year] in Delhi NCT (2014) Source: CEEW; MCD 2015

27

Draft, not for citation

Several centralised composting plants (including Okhla composting plant, which processed 126 tonnes/ day or 46,000 tonne/year for MCD in 2014), utilising windrow composting method, were set up in Delhi NCT including other major cities in India in 1975-2000 under National Scheme of Solid Waste Disposal but most of them are non-functional at present (Talyan, Dahiya, and Sreekrishnan 2007). Most significant reason for their failure is poor financial condition of such plants due to a low quality compost which is laden with heavy metals, toxins, glass etc. and has no takers (Basu 2013). It is a clear case of lack in proper planning and implementation as composting requires high levels of segregation in order to be technically and financially viable (See Section 4.3.1). Delhi’s existing WtE incineration plant was commissioned in January 2012 and is processing around 2,000 tons per day and generating 16 MW. Originally when plant was commissioned in 1987 as the first WtE pilot (300 TPD and 3.75 MW) in the country, it lay un-operational for years, due to a lack in local adaptation of technology (mismatch between plant design and quality of waste20) (CPHEEO 2000). The original WtE plant was scrapped in 199021 and IL&FS Pvt. Ltd. entered into a public-private partnership agreement with MCD, to build WtE plant with a capacity of 6 MW that will use Refuse derived fuel (RDF) to utilise mixed waste with low calorific value (Ritu Gupta 2006). The project was registered for carbon finance under CDM in 200722. Project documents (CDM 2012) reveal that, initially, the plant was proposed to have a biomethanation facility as well and methane was to be utilised as supplementary fuel in the WtE thermal plant operating on RDF from Okhla and Timarpur facilities. Later, the biomethanation plant and RDF facility at Timarpur were scrapped. Project developers upgraded the plant capacity three times and it was reduced to boiler based WtE plant, running on RDF alone, sourced entirely from Okhla RDF facility. Major modifications happened after the Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment and no new studies were conducted to assess the impact of technological substitution (Shah 2011; Sruthijith 2011). Contract to operate the plant was awarded to Jindal Urban Infrastructure Ltd. in 2008 and plant started operation in 2012. As per the monitoring report plant sells nearly 50% of generated electricity (122 GWh/year) to the local grid, while rest is being sold via open access (CDM 2012), purported to be used by Jindal for its captive use (Shah 2011). It was pointed out in the media reports that plant did not have specialised equipment for removal of toxics from fumes and was built at fraction of cost for what it takes to implement such plants in parts of world that have stringent regulation for emission controls. Total cost of upgraded plant was INR 240 crores out of which INR 50 Crores were spent on emission control. Modern WtE plants with robust

20

Plant was originally designed for calorific value at 1462.5 k Cal/kg whereas the incoming waste had calorific values in the range 600-700 k Cal/kg (Shah 2011) 21 Plant was built by Volund Miljotecknik Ltd. with support from Government of Denmark at capital costs of INR 200 million. Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) incurred a cost of INR 19 million on maintenance and insurance of plant. (Ritu Gupta 2006; Shah 2011) 22 Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) worth 262791tonne CO2e for a fixed credit period from 2011 to 2021

28

Draft, not for citation

emission control costs 10-2023 times more than this (Sruthijith 2011). Pollution control is major contributor to very high cost of incineration WtE technology and it is implemented through a combination of improvements in plant design and post-combustion emission controls as such plant operate close to densely populated urban settlements. Incineration of mixed waste releases toxic mixture of dioxins, furans, hydrochloride and heavy metals such as lead and mercury into the atmosphere apart from conventions emissions from any thermal power technology such as SOX, NOX, CO2 and suspended particulate matter. Host of issues such as complexity of emissions, proximity of plant to densely populated urban settlements, lack of clarity on roles of various regulatory and monitoring agencies have all led to proliferation of ongoing challenges related to incineration WtE technology in India. In addition, monitoring agencies like DPCC and CPCB do not have capacity to monitor dioxin and furan emissions (Rao 2013; Sruthijith 2011). Residents of nearby communities filed public interest litigation to Delhi High Court in 2009 and case has been heard by High Court, National Green Tribunal (NGT) and High Court multiple times since then (Rao 2013). Technical evaluation of CPCB in 2011 revealed that furan and dioxin emissions were not being quantified and ash was not being tested for heavy metals (Rao 2013). Later when an expert panel of NGT made a surprise inspection in March 2013, Furan and dioxin levels in boiler stack were found to be 120 times higher the permissible limits (Rao 2013). With no landfill diversion policy in place, current disposal rate of 75% (percentage disposed of collected waste in 2014) is alarming for the city (figure 11). Due to uncontrolled landfilling in Delhi, existing landfills sites don’t suffice for waste disposal needs. Waste treatment and disposal sites are, at times, closed down indefinitely due environmental concerns and are resumed again due to unavailability of other suitable land parcels for landfilling. Existing landfills operated by various ULBs under their jurisdiction do not meet MSW rules for safe disposal and three out of four existing landfills i.e. Bhalswa, Ghazipur and Okhla landfills have already reached saturation and stand 35-45 metres above the ground level (DPCC 2014). Three of four existing landfills site not authorised by monitoring agency DPCC but are still being operated due to lack of any immediate alternative. The fourth landfill: Bawana Narela SLF, the biggest landfill in operation, started operation in 2013 (MCD 2015). Direct cost of municipal disposal operation is estimated to be INR 227-295 per tonne waste disposal, depending upon whether waste is transported by MCD or a private agent (Hayami et al. 2006).

MSW transportation [tonne/ year] Central

Bhalsawa Landfill 240

Ghazipur Landfill 0

Okhla compost plant

Okhla Landfill 111,329

23

10,117

Okhla WTE

450,299

Bawana Narela Landfill

Total from zones 0

571,985

Cost of WtE plant in Paris compared in media report is 10 times higher but the plant capacity being lower, cost per tonne solid waste is 16 times higher

29

Draft, not for citation

City Civil lines Karol Bagh Najafgarh Narela Rohini Sadar Paharganj

38,610

5

483

8,924

863

2

112,518

9

13

1,022

35,256

215,091

290,467

20

0

3,162

12,971

10,351

55,295

652

178,838

11,097

4

198,791

0

65,650

28,101

303,643

151,374

26

31

0

0

193,595

345,027

50,801

117

4

20

33,762

46,351

131,055

89,550

15

19

0

105,479

590

195,652

Shahdara North

0

608,800

11

0

5,145

0

613,957

Shahdara South

0

624,774

15

0

860

0

625,649

75

0

122,883

24,612

166,450

9,940

323,961

288,088

421

0

11

12,355

0

300,876

0

0

0

0

12,950

0

12,950

751,278

1,235,034

433,581

46,153

943,502

497,483

3,907,032

South West WTE-Jindal Total at Sites Source: MCD 2015

Table 4 Zone-wise and site-wise transportation of MSW across the city in 2014

Transportation of waste is not optimal in the city while it is the major source of municipal spending as mentioned earlier in the section. It can be inferred from MSW transportation data (Table 4 and Figure 10) that 74% of solid waste generated in the “city zone” was transported to the farthest landfill from the zone (Bawana Narela). A similar waste transportation pattern can be observed with other zones in the city. 54% solid waste generated within Sadar Paharganj zone was transported to the second farthest landfill (Okhla landfill) from this zone’s location. Apart from lack in capacities of local authorities for optimal routing of solid waste transportation, it is partly due to haphazard management caused by unmanaged urban growth and uncontrolled landfilling. Also, the municipal bodies are at times unable to pay Safai Karamchari on time which causes strikes and disruption in street cleaning and waste collection services they render to the city. In May 2015, this caused a major disruption in waste management services in East Delhi and it was widely acknowledged that trifurcation has not worked in favour of better service delivery in the city and there is an urgent need for empowerment of ULBs by state governments (Joshi and Sheikh 2015). Landfill sites Bawana Narela SLF Bhalswa landfill Ghazipur landfill Okhla landfill Jaitpur Bhatti Mines Puthkhurd Sultanpur Dabas

2

Inception

Area [km ] 2013 1994 1984 1996 Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed

Waste received in 2014 [Tonnes per day]

0.607 0.162 0.283 0.129 0.246 0.680 0.550 0.160

Table 5 Existing and closed landfills in the city

30

1363 2058 3384 1188 0 0 0 0

Draft, not for citation

Sources: UDD 2006, Talyan et al 2007, DPCC 2014, MCD 2015

Treatment facilities

Inception

Timarpur-Okhla WtE- 16 MW Ghazipur WtE- 12 MW Narela WtE- 24 MW Okhla MCD compost plant Bhalswa composting plant C&D Burari plant C&D Bakarwala plant

Capacity [tonnes per day]

2013

2050 1300 3000 200 500 500 500

Proposed Proposed

1980 1998 ---

Waste received in 2014 [Tonnes per day]

CER for financing under CDM [tonne CO2e]

2585 0 0

126 0 -----

262791 111949 24 54173 25 33461

Table 6 Existing and proposed treatment facilities in city Sources: Talyan et al 2007, DPCC 2014, MCD 2015, UNFCCC 2016

Despite recommendations by various studies in favour of Composting and Biomethanation based on high bio-degradable content and low calorific value of disposed mixed waste in the city, including MCD’s own feasibility study commissioned in 2004, (COWI and KEC 2004), city authorities opted for two more WtE incineration to deal with the waste (Table 6). In recent decade the biodegradable content of waste has increased (Figure 8) and it is not being diverted for composting or biomethanation. As a result of this deposition is biodegradable waste, is increasing at landfill sites (Figure 12) which is dangerous for the city due to public health and environmental risks. Apart from the facts that landfills are not scientifically designed, the location of landfills sites is not determined according to science based suitability assessment and three out of four landfill sites in the city are located close to natural water bodies (Talyan, Dahiya, and Sreekrishnan 2007). At the time of writing this report, one of the four big landfills (Bhalsawa landfill) was on fire. Figure 12 shows that landfill area requirement in near future to meet the demand for waste disposal, extent (area) of existing landfill sites and landfills that are filled up (DDA 2007). The landfill area reported in city masterplan does not represent the true extent of land used for waste disposal. There are many illegal and open dumps in the city, exact extent of which is not known. It should be the responsibility of city authorities to map all such major site so that land restoration tasks can be taken up there in future. Delhi was estimated to have 14.83 km2 (nearly 1% of the city area) active or closed landfill areas in 2002 which produce 81.5 million litres leachate annually (Talyan, Dahiya, and Sreekrishnan 2007). Apart from emissions from landfilling/ 24 25

From composting at Bawana Narela integrated facility From 200 TPD proposed expansion

31

Draft, not for citation

open dumping and burning of waste, transportation is another significant contributor to emissions of the waste management activities. It is found that there were on average 1298 truck trips every day to three landfill sites namely Okhla, Bhalsawa and Gazipur landfill sites (COWI and KEC 2004) but exact extent of emissions from hauling waste is not known and is a significant research gap. NGT banned sale of any new diesel vehicles in 2015 to curb air pollution in the city and this has presented municipalities with a new challenge to upgrade their vehicle fleet for solid waste evacuation. Emissions from transportation vehicles should be an important element environmental footprint of urban solid waste while building scenarios and planning for future infrastructure.

Figure 11 Time-series (2007-2014) data on total solid waste transported for treatment and final disposal, as reported by Municipal Corporations of Delhi (above), and present extent of

32

Draft, not for citation

landfills in the city i.e. the total area under existing, currently proposed and filled up sites (lower left), and change in disposable waste characteristics at the landfill in period 1996-2004 (lower right) Sources: COWI 2004, DDA 2006, Talyan et al 2007, DPCC 2014, MCD 2015

5. Solutions for Managing Urban Solid Waste Sustainably In this section various solutions for managing urban waste, which may be social, economic or technological in nature, are presented and discussed. These solutions apply across the supply chain of urban SWM. Five strategies26 to deal with the waste challenge and their hierarchy form the guiding principles for implementing a system approach in dealing with the challenges of urban waste, along with other principles outlined in Figure 4. Traditional approach based in command and control (CAC) have been poorly implementation in urban India and implementing these strategies successfully requires policy instruments (marketbased and otherwise), reforms in institutional and planning processes, market integration, and focused technological interventions with strong local context. We discuss these solutions starting with policy interventions under Section 5.1, which have been applied in cities around the world. These aim to bring about a positive behavioural change in consumer and producer groups (discussed in Section 3) alike, through economic incentives or disincentives. How can policy interventions be designed so that they create a balance amongst five strategies and do not have any undesired distributional impact, is important question that policymakers need to ask. Implementing policy instruments requires a degree of environmental consciousness among citizens, Institutional capacities and political will, and they usually need to be applied in combination to optimize their affect. Cost effectiveness in implementation, for administrative and compliance costs of these instruments is another important issue. Section 5.2 discuss role of design for sustainable consumption and production (SCP) and community participation which can help bringing down the challenges of waste beyond conventional end-of-pipe strategies and policy interventions. Institutional capacity building is utmost important for implementing SWM strategies and focused policy interventions in India’s cities. This along with the informal sector integration is discussed under Section 5.3 which touches upon institutional and social reforms. Various technologies for SWM (biological and thermo-chemical conversions, including pelletisation, MBT and LFG recovery) which can neutralise solid waste and enable material or energy recovery are outlined in Section 5.3. Associated technical and financial barriers of these technologies for India’s cities are also discussed therein. 26

prevention & reduction, direct reuse, upstream & downstream recycling, treatment, and disposal; in receding order of preference

33

Draft, not for citation

5.1 Policy Instruments for Urban Waste Management 5.1.1 Quantity-based User Charges or Pay as You Throw (PaYT) Quantity-based user charge27 is an important policy mechanism that has been applied successfully for waste management in cities across the globe28. It provides an incentive to generators for diversion of waste unlike flat rate waste management fee. Quantity-based charges are applied in commensurate with the waste that is discarded by households and businesses (disposable waste). It induces a fundamental change in behaviour of waste generators by highlighting the environmental burden of residual waste which remains unsegregated and by enforcing them to pay in commensurate with disposed mixed waste. This instrument is directly linked to Polluter pays principle (PPP) and those who pollute more pay more. This policy intervention yields benefits at different levels: 1. Quantity-based user fee has direct benefit of minimisation of disposable or mixed waste. This reduces the burden on public authorities for evacuation and disposal of mixed waste. It has proven to be successful solution for bringing down the amount of waste that is landfilled in leading sustainable cities. The disposable waste fell by little more than 20% in Republic of Korea in 2007 (from disposal rate of 1.3kg/ capita in 1994) as a result of introduction of volume based charges in 1995 (CSD 2009). Similar waste diversion rates are documented to have been achieved with PaYT in other parts of the world. ROVA, a non-profit waste collection company, serves more than 300,000 households in east of Netherlands and introduced a frequency based PaYT in 2000 which helped it achieve 25% reduction in residual waste generation (Goorhuis et al. 2012). 2. It discourages waste-generators from throwing away recyclables into disposable waste stream. In wake such policy measure, waste generator would like to save by diverting, as much waste as possible, to resource recycling streams. It therefore encourages source-segregation, home-composting and reuse/recycling of materials. In Korea, while the landfilling fell as a direct result of PaYT from 72.3% in 1995 to 23.6% in 27

Quantity based charge is alternatively termed as “pay as you throw” (PaYT) and “unit-based pricing” mechanism It is being used for waste management in North America, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Thailand etc. (Goorhuis et al. 2012) 28

34

Draft, not for citation

2007, the recycling rate went up from 23.7% to 57.8% in the same period (CSD 2009), effectively increasing the recycling rate by 2.4 times. 3. Users are charged in an equitable manner as the user-fee is commensurate with the amount of waste that is disposed to the waste collection system. PaYT could entail different unit-prices for residential and commercial users. The implementation of PaYT could also vary upon the density of settlements and other socio-economic and demographic characteristics. 4. It has additional indirect benefit as the disposable waste becomes quantifiable as a result of this measure. The impact of the policy intervention can subsequently be measured by yearly reductions in disposable waste that a city is able to achieve as PaYT is enforced and leads to systemic changes towards a lesser resource intensive economy. Clearly, this policy measure requires a very good recycling system to thrive i.e. an adequate collection system for recyclables and robust information on reuse/ recycling options for waste generators. There are also challenges associated with implementation of this policy instrument, especially when Indian municipalities have no experience with such mechanism and collection of user fee for waste management services is not practiced in most of Indian cities. Under this mechanism, residential and commercial users have differentiated tariffs based on quantity of their disposable waste. If not implemented without understanding the community attitudes and environmental perceptions, it might result into undesirable behaviour such as fly dumping or burning of waste. But international experience has shown that such unsustainable behaviours can be curbed by reinforcing the PaYT mechanism with robust recycling infrastructure and information. There are multiple ways in which this mechanism can be implemented. Unit pricing can be based on weight, volume or frequency of disposal. Weight-based charges would require actual weighing of disposed waste, say, by waste picker at each household. Another commonly applied form, volume-based charge, is easier to implement but faces challenges such as overfilling of sacks. Volume-based charges are commonly implemented with prepaid bags of varying sizes and corresponding pricing. It is normally a responsibility of concerned collection agency to make prepaid disposable bags available in the local market for households and businesses. Prepaid bags normally carry a seal or tag to avoid counterfeit bags (EPD 2016). In volume-based charge mechanism, there is lower incentive for waste diversion as size or volume of bin is a marginal unit whereas in the case of weight-based charge, there is continuous incentive for diversion of increment unit waste. For this reasons, weight based charge is preferable to the volume based charges. Normally progression of fees in cities has been from no fees, to a flat rate fee, to a volume based fee, to a weight based fee (Scott and Watson 2006). Key concern for Indian policymakers is- whether cities in India can

35

Draft, not for citation

leapfrog from free solid waste management services to a successful model of quantity-based charges that promote sustainable habits among residents? PaYT should be piloted in communities where environmental awareness is high and sufficient provisions and information on recycling exist. Monitoring and evaluation of PaYT should be essential components so that progress in waste diversion and hence its success can be well documented. Involving residents in designing such an intervention is extremely important. RWA or other CBOs can play a pivotal role in this regard.

5.1.2 Deposit-Refund (D-R) System Deposit-refund is a forefront mechanism to promote upstream recycling of materials. It encourages recycling of end-of-life products and packaging waste. This mechanism is also effective in reducing littering e.g. from PET bottles or other packaging waste. There is no limit to types of consumer products (e.g. beverage cans, glass bottles, electronic goods and lead-acid batteries etc. at end of their life.) to which this measure can be applied. Deposit-refund system requires producers and retailers to strengthen upstream recycling routes and/or require close corporation with the recycling industry. D-R system can either be achieved either through voluntary take-back mechanism (which is practiced by few supermarkets in India) or through regulatory enforcement. Voluntary systems, only practiced by few manufacturers, cannot yield impact closer to a D-R system that is enforced by public authorities. Later works with a close corporation from producers, recycling industry and retailers, who take back end-of-life products. It was found that after close corporation with the private recycling firm, the recycling rate for PET bottle in Mauritius went up from 4% to the 30% in a short time of four years from 2005 to 2009 (Modak et al. 2012). Citizens and waste pickers alike, find an attractive incentive to recyclable items without the hassle of trading them to a suitable recycling dealer. Deposit Refund systems are successfully working for beverage bottles around the world with recycling rates exceeding 90% in Scandinavia and Germany, and at 87.7% in Japan (Modak et al. 2012).

5.1.3 Packaging Regulations With increase in urbanisation and consumption, quantum of packaging waste is bound to rise and become more heterogeneous for management. Packaging regulation can go a long way in minimising the amount of waste that is generated in cities. A lot of countries around the globe, especially in the developed world, have separate packaging regulation. Packaging regulations serve two purposes-

36

Draft, not for citation

1. They mandate standards for maximum amount of certain packaging materials that can be used for delivering different products to consumers. They can also eliminate certain materials to be used for packaging due to scarcity of those materials or environmental degradation resulting from their usage. Ban on plastic bags in parts of India is a good example of later. 2. Packaging regulations ease segregation and promote sustainable behaviour. This is realised by making it mandatory to producers to label different packing materials so that it becomes easier for consumers to identify different materials and dispose them in sustainable manner. In India, there is not separate packaging regulation but Rules for Plastic waste impose ban on certain types of packaging materials e.g. polythene bags. In Europe there is separate Packaging Waste Directive which includes targets for re-use and recycling of packaging. Also countries have their own packaging regulations, for instance, Packaging ordinance which was introduced in 1991 in Germany and contains provisions for producers, distributors and retailers to take back used packaging. key impacts of this regulation were that recycled glass now makes up to 90% of newly produced glass in Berlin and every tonne of recycled light packaging waste saves the city 510 kg CO2e29 (Schulze, Znadonella, and Gutsche 2013). This collectively made up to nearly 34%30 of all recycled materials in the city including organic fractions (Schulze et al. 2013).

5.1.4 Product Input Taxes and Recycling Credits A tax on primary input of virgin materials is an important fiscal mechanism to promote upstream recycling and waste minimisation at producer’s end. Reverse of this mechanism is recycling credits. In later case, it is usually the local authority responsible for waste evacuation and disposal that transfers its financial savings to the recycling or manufacturing firm as recycling credits, to those who collect and recycle waste. There are many other modes in which such mechanism is applied around the world such as subsidies for recycling facilities, investment tax credits for purchase of recycled equipment, tax credits for recycling waste from landfill site etc.

29 30

Aggregate saving from recycling light packaging amount to 41 million tonne CO 2e in 2012 66, 000 tonne glass and 80,000 tonne of light packaging waste were recycled in 2012

37

Draft, not for citation

5.1.5 Landfill/ Incineration Taxes and Superfunds Landfill taxes are directly based on Polluter Pays principle (PPP). In this case, residents and enterprises are then liable to pay for environmental degradation resulting from residual waste that ends up in landfills. Similar taxes have also been applied for incineration where use of hazardous substances (which need incineration) in any product and services invites incineration taxes. The money collected from landfill/ incineration taxes money is spent on land restoration or reversing environmental damages resulting from incineration. Benefits from such tax regimes are twofold1. Direct benefit of such taxes is revenue generation. They help ULBs to generate revenues in commensurate with required remediation tasks and therefore encouraging private sector participation 2. They induce a more fundamental change among producer groups as an indirect benefit. Such taxes encourage producers or manufacturers to innovate and look for alternative materials or packaging solutions so that the amount of residual or nonrecyclable waste (for landfilling) and hazardous waste (for incineration) either reduces or is completely eliminated if suitable alternatives are available. Implementing landfill/ incineration taxes requires imputing cost to externalities of landfilling and incineration. It is not always possible to identify those liable to environmental damage and to make them pay under PPP. In some cases, it is difficult to establish or determine the spatio-temporal extent of pollution and resulting environmental damage occurring from uncontrolled hazardous waste disposal activities or it is usually the case that most of the businesses who were responsible for damage in past, do not exist now and those who do, are not able to pay for full cost of remediation tasks. Superfunds are used in such special cases to generate funds/ revenue for environmental improvement or remediation tasks from taxpayers’ money. An example of this is USEPA’ Superfund Program (USEPA 2016).

5.2 Sustainable Production and Consumption There are multiple routes through which unsustainable consumption and production can be addressed. Section 5.1 explores economic instruments for waste management, which work in favour of sustainable consumer and producer behaviour. This section explores various social and information tools that can potentially induce a more fundamental change. It requires engaging with various producer and consumer groups. Role of national level policies, labels and information tools is pivotal for moving forward in this direction.

38

Draft, not for citation

5.2.1 Design for Environment and Extended Producers’ Responsibility (EPR) Product design has huge potential for minimising waste and increasing resource efficiency. It is therefore desirable to have product and processes designed in a way that resource consumption and waste is minimised over the life of a product. Design can also enable better re-use and recyclability. Several design concepts such as design for re-use, design for recyclability, design for disassembly, design for environment and eco-design revolve around this. It is responsibility of producers to implement design for environment. Consumers also need to be made aware of environmental impacts of their choices so that there is market demand for environmentally designed products. For this purpose, civil societies, consumer associations, and retailers who serve as crucial link between the producers and consumers of products, have an important role to play. They can usher both social groups i.e. producers and consumers on a sustainable trajectory through co-ordinated and environmentally responsive actions. They have the responsibility to inform consumers on environmental friendly choices. SWITCH programme which works with four large food and beverage retailers in India involving various SMEs, reports 30% reduction in solid waste as a result of sustainable practices among those retailers (GFA 2015). More engagement with various social groups and strong policy signals are required in order to have a robust information ecosystem which enables more fundamental social change at large scale. Promoting sustainable production entails several activities, policy measure, national standards, educational or information programmes etc. Few steps in this direction will entail following.

1. Encourage scientific approaches, such as Life cycle analysis (LCA), for environmental footprinting of products. LCAs can help identify trade-offs among different products or packaging solutions, with an overall aim to reduce waste and resulting health and environmental impacts. Building capacities of academia and research institutions for undertaking LCAs will be an important step in this direction. 2. Build a knowledge sharing platform for raising awareness among producers. Also efforts are required for capacity building for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to move on sustainable production trajectory. 3. National level awards programme for innovation in design-for-environment and endof-life management 4. Strengthen eco-labelling standards for a widespread adoption and build a separate institution for managing eco-labels. 5. Develop a national level network of retailers, consumer associations and civil society organisation for shared learning and to raise public awareness on these standards and labels.

39

Draft, not for citation

5.2.2 Zero Waste Communities “Zero waste” is an emerging strategy, being adopted by locals and communities around the world, to curb growing challenges of solid waste. It aims to practically close the material feedback loop by adopting lifestyles that support minimal waste generation, maintaining separate streams of waste for reusability and recyclability. Zero- waste strategies will vary with the local context but one of the most significant implications of zero waste is that it promotes local production in sustainable manner with a minimal possible sourcing of materials from outside the community. SWM under zero waste strategy, therefore, effectively becomes a resource management task. Here agents of change are citizens or citizen groups rather than governments. It is highly participatory and bottom-up (community-led) strategy, when compared with all other solutions, discussed above, requiring high degree of citizen awareness and education so that residents are willing to participate in building a zero waste community and have sufficient knowledge of various means for material reuse/ recycling such as home-composting for biodegradable waste. Segregation requirements increase exponentially to implement zero waste strategy requiring robust collection and recycling system. Zero waste also requires initiatives from producers. Producers need to label different materials, especially the packaging materials, carefully and design the products/ packaging so that material could be recovered as much as possible, practically leaving no a minimal possible residual waste. Zero waste could form important element of waste management strategies for industrial towns, affluent communities and ecosensitive zones such hilly towns or certain coastal cities where environmental cost of landfilling is very high.

5.3 Enabling Institutions for a Social Change 5.3.1 Capacity building of Urban Local Bodies: Waste planning, Open Data and Social Innovation Municipalities in all major cities including Delhi NCT do not plan for solid waste management (Section 1 & 3). Empowerments of city governments and capacity building of local institutions is the first step which is required for a positive change from present scenario. It is recommended that cities start conducting waste audits on yearly basis and maintain good quality time-series data on waste. Apart from local government bodies or municipalities, it is also the responsibility of communities, especially RWAs for affluent colonies, where per capita waste generation rates are very high compared to average per capita generation in the city. It is up to the policymakers to decide whether such data

40

Draft, not for citation

reporting at community level should be mandatory or voluntary but a strong policy signal is required in this direction.

Figure 13 System approach for tackling solid waste strategy and planning in cities: with 31 annual waste auditing and Source: CEEW 2016

A schematic, drawing from the discussions above and summarising the key requirements for ULBs to draw, execute and constantly evaluate waste management plans, is presented in Figure 13. This would require municipal level waste-audits to begin with, which should include following statistics1. Service coverage: To start with, municipalities should map areas (with their populations and key demographic characteristic e.g. planned or unplanned colonies) with and without access to municipality’s basic collection services. 2. Status of infrastructure in coverage areas: This includes provisions of collection and recycling in different areas with information on their adequacy. Collection system can be measured by Litres of waste storage (primary) capacity per thousand households in 31

The physical composition of waste in the figure is representative of urban mixed solid waste stream

41

Draft, not for citation

all coverage area. This information should be accompanied by nature of collection i.e. types of receptacles, frequency of collection and whether receptacles are covered or not. 3. Generation and source characterisation: Maintain a time series of waste generation at different sources with its characterisation. Waste collector can play an important role in data collection drives. They can extend their help to local governments by taking samples of recyclables and residual waste at household level. Training of waste collector and checks needs to be ensured by local governments in this direction. Characterisation32 of waste at different sources, for instance in residential areas, should also include accompanying information on economic status of residential areas. Colony level socio-economic information, collected by Municipal Valuation Committees (for example, Figure 6) which is primarily for property tax collection, can be utilised in this regard. 4. Mapping decentralised infrastructure: Decentralised treatment facilities need to be mapped at the city level e.g. in Delhi NCT has lot of community models for solid waste treatment which were established by NGOs like Vatavaran, ToxicLink and CEE. Although extent of waste treatment at such facilities is negligible compared to overall quantum of waste generated by city at the moment, it will become an important component of waste management as the decentralised treatment gains momentum in urban India. Apart from measuring the impact of interventions that promote decentralised treatment, such mapping would also encourage peer to peer learning among different colonies in the city. 5. Mapping recycling activities: Informal sector contributions to the economy need to be quantified. First requirement would be registration of informal workers so that concrete steps can be taken for their integration. Integration will entail training, safety gears, disbursement of recycling credits if local governments decide to transfer savings to recyclers. Informal workers are involved in recycling activities at various levels (collection, dealers, dismantling and recycling units and micro-enterprises) in different parts of the city and mapping should be done at ward level. In addition, informal sector recycling will include GIS mapping of various sorting facilities for recyclables available at the ward level. 6. Mapping centralised infrastructure: Centralised infrastructure includes transportation vehicles, zone level transfer stations or recycling yards, various centralised treatment plants and landfill sites in the city. Mapping will be required with the information on capacity (tonnes per day), operational status (tonnes of solid waste processed annually) and operational life of plants/ landfills. GIS mapping of centralised infrastructure will enable optimal routing of waste from different parts of the city to processing plants or landfill sites.

32

Physical composition of total waste generated at the household including C/N ratio for biodegradable fraction and calorific value for disposable waste fraction after separation of recyclables

42

Draft, not for citation

It cannot be emphasised enough that mere reporting of data is pointless and utter waste of public resources until data becomes openly available and meets the requirement of solid waste planning and other social actors such as waste handlers, social enterprises and entrepreneurs. Collected information should feed into the planning processes, management/ implementation for increasing operational efficiencies and creating favourable grounds for social innovation in the waste sector as open data is conducive to bottom up social innovation. This information can enable a sound waste management strategy and planning including yearly recycling targets and planning for new infrastructure required to meet future demand for waste management. This will require capacity building efforts for ULBs, including mutual learning among cities. Institutional reforms and strong policy signals are required at different levels as outlined in Figure 14. Institutional framework for enabling proposed planning and management practices at local level is outlined in Figure 15. It is desirable that there are three different cells at ULB level and Eco-information Centres in each ward for tackling urban solid waste and local level implementation. Former will require restructuring within the local institutions. Later would essentially have the roles which have long been neglected by local authorities because they have huge operational and management burdens and formation of such local institutions can reduce the burden of such tasks on city authorities. 1. A pan city Planning cell which interacts with the citizen groups to enable participatory planning. Coordination between planning cell and citizen groups is achieved through Eco-information Centres (described below) in the city wards. It is recommended that waste planning happens periodically in five years period and planning cell determines the targets for services coverage, recycling targets and infrastructure requirements for next five years period. Yearly waste audits form an important input to the waste plans by the cell. 2. Eco-information centres are proposed to come up at the ward level and would have equal participation from local government, civil society organisations, consumer associations, resident welfare associations and market associations located in different colonies of a ward. Role of Eco-information centres would be registration and integration of informal workers, maintaining database on informal recycling activities, addressing NIMBY issues for decentralised treatment, assessing societal and environmental attitudes of city residents, implementing various social or information tools, for instance, for home-composting, segregation, reuse/ recycling etc. Mapping of all illegal dumpsites in the city is necessary for remediation work and will be required in the later stages as regularly regimes mandate. In addition, assessing the land availability for decentralised treatment, ward level recycling facilities, new collection points etc. would be taken up by same centres so that land-use data becomes available at the ward level and “land as resource” forms an important aspect of urban planning33. This requires political will at the state level and devolutions of 33

Currently, urban bodies in India plan for infrastructure development in cities (as City Development Plans) whereas State agencies such as Development authorities and Town and Country Planning Departments are engaged preparing land-use plans for all urban area (as city master-plans).

43

Draft, not for citation

state powers in favour of integrated resource management at local level (Figure 14). Different wards can also take up intra-state clustering of available land for development of decentralised infrastructure and in this regard, role of Ecoinformation Centres to educate residents and eliminating NIMBY issues would be pivotal. 3. Management cell which can handle the day to day managements and operations. It would actively engage with various waste handlers (Figure 15) in the city and utilise the information provide by planning cell in order to optimise its operations to eliminate haphazard management of resources and increase financial viability of municipal operations. 4. Monitoring and evaluation cell, whose role is to assess the impact of different policy measures, management practices and help implementation by bridging the information gap by coordinating between planning and management cells. This cell also collates and harmonises the information received from two cells, i.e. planning and management, for the annual waste audits.

Figure 14 Mapping of existing (black), ongoing / upcoming (green) and proposed (blue) changes in political regimes for waste governance Source: CEEW 2016

44

Draft, not for citation

Figure 15 Proposed institutional frameworks at local level for implementation focussed urban waste management Source: CEEW 2016

5.3.2 Closing the loop: Role of Recycling Targets and Informal Sector Integration Informal sector is one of the glaring opportunities for urban waste sector that cannot be ignored. Informal sector in India includes- door to door waste collectors, rag pickers, itinerant buyers, small-to-medium recycling dealers and unauthorised recycling units. It is estimated that there are nearly 1.5 million waste pickers and itinerant buyers in Urban India (IIHS 2011). This entire chain of resource management operates across all urban centres of India, without much recognition and thrives in absence of any formal efforts and strong policy emphasis on recycling. Informal workers carry out majority of recycling activities which not only promote sustainable consumption but also reduce operational and financial burden on municipal authorities. Informal sector doesn’t receive required recognition for their efforts despite enormous socio-economic, environmental and health benefits they bring to the cities. Informal workers’ cooperatives are becoming more common around the world and there are 1,000 such cooperatives in South America including national associations for cooperatives in Brazil, Colombia and Argentina (Medina 2010). This helps them fetch better prices for collected recyclables and protecting their rights. SWaCH, Pune is one of foremost example of informal sector integration in India but this success has not been replicated in other cities. Informal workers in Pune work for door to door collection of segregated waste and are

45

Draft, not for citation

engaged in sorting activities at material recovery facilities. They do so under co-operative called SWaCH and are formally recognised by Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC). The social enterprise SWaCH34 (Solid Waste Collection handling) started as waste pickers union called Kagad Kach Patra Kashtakari Panchayat (KKPKP) way back in 1993 and was later reformed as wholly workers owned cooperative in 2007 to protect rights of waste-pickers, itinerant buyers and waste collectors (Chikarmane 2012). Consistent effort by SWaCH led to Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) being the first municipality in the country to authorise waste-pickers and itinerant buyers to collect recyclables by endorsing their photo-identity cards. There are about 8,000 registered waste pickers and itinerant waste buyers and 500 waste traders in Pune which now enjoy more stable incomes, fewer working hours, safety gears, uniforms and collection equipment from PMC (Chikarmane 2012). Waste pickers in Pune earn about 30% of their income (annually 72,000 per capita) from user-fees and rest is earned from selling recyclables. Sawach members also work in biomethanation and composting units established by PMC on Build Operate Transfer (BOT) basis. This has been the largest of such attempt at integrating informal sector in country and SWaCH is responsible for waste collection from 48% households in Pune in 2012 (Chikarmane 2012). Pune has gone beyond integration and municipality is providing health insurance for these workers (Scheinberg et al. 2010). Global study on informal sector integration in six cities reveals that informal workers in Pune direct 22% of generated waste for recycling activities (Scheinberg et al. 2010) but it is worth noting that all these cities except Pune35 had some formal recycling provisions (though informal recycling was major contributor to overall recycling except in the city Lusaka) and policies in place whereas Pune had none. This reflects the complete absence of any policy emphasis on formal recycling in India. While the cities need to learn from Pune’s example on integration of informal workers, at the same time strong signals are required from national, state and local policies to move from waste management to resource management in cities. In this regard, it is important that cities plan for waste (Section 5.3.1) and appropriately set the recycling targets which are revised in subsequent planning period depending upon the experience from previous planning periods. Recycling targets can also be set for individual waste streams e.g. biodegradable waste, paper etc. to encourage targeted development of recycling sector for specific streams depending on economic value and environmental savings from recycling. Also, it should be noted that upstream recycling36 is important as it encourages innovation in product design 37 and promotes resource efficiency at producer’s end. Another reason why upstream recycling is important is because when the goods recycled downstream, finally enter waste streams, their

34

Formally known as SWaCH Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Cairo, Cluj, Lima, Lusaka and Quezon city 36 Downstream recycling mean that recycled products enter the market after a slight modification or refurbishment in contrast to direct reuse e.g. market for second hand mobile phones. Upstream recycling includes material recovery and input of those materials back to the production processes. 37 For efficient resource-use 35

46

Draft, not for citation

material recovery and recyclability will still depend upon the robust collection system and how well established is the entire upstream recycling chain.

5.4 Proposed Framework for Ward level Implementation in Delhi NCT While long-term measures and solution are discussed throughout his report, we propose a short-term implementation framework (Figure 16) for tackling solid waste in Delhi NCT. The proposed framework is based on existing opportunities in the system, namely- DTDC, large informal sector, municipal collection system for disposable waste and opportunity of codigestion. Existing DTDC system for a large part of the city (232 out of 272 wards in the city, see Section 4.2). A large informal sector is involved in recycling activities i.e. waste pickers, itinerant buyers and scrap dealers. Part of this large informal sector is already involved in DTDC drives. Existing municipal infrastructure for collection, sorting and transfer of waste is appropriate to handle mixed disposable waste. If this system is adapted for handling specially this kind of waste under PaYT (See Section 5.5.1), the recyclables can be directed to local treatment or material recovery facilities in the ward. For organic fractions of urban solid waste, there is an immense opportunity for co-digestion of yard-waste and organic kitchen/food waste from residential and commercial areas (See section 5.4.1). It is proposed that yard waste is treated along with the food waste at local decentralised treatment facilities designed to simply neutralise organic waste via aerobic composting or recover energy via biomethanation (for affluent communities). Financial risks for biomethanation technology can be significantly reduced if the national solid waste management rules are adapted in the separate local byelaws which ban mixing of organic fraction with other types of waste. This reinforced with PaYT can result in significant waste diversions for recycling activities. Recycling can be strengthened by integrating the informal workers or their association into the waste management system. Additionally, it will also require training for Safai Karamchari so that they can segregate the inert waste from street sweeping at source which is then sent to municipal system for direct disposal and recyclable are collected by waste collector. The framework would need implementation in phased manner meaning that it would need to be implemented in few wards before it could become a norm for the entire city. Determining recycling targets would require a new assessment of waste quantum and characterisation at sources in pilot wards. Also, land availability and suitability for developing decentralised treatment facilities need to be assessed in pilot wards. It is recommended that such framework is tried out in communities with high level of environmental awareness.

47

Draft, not for citation

Figure 16 Proposed Framework for ward level implementation in Delhi Source: CEEW 2016

5.5 Technologies for Urban Waste Management: Local adaptation and financial sustainability Opportunities and challenges associated with various technological options are discussed under this section. Table 7 provides an overview of various technologies and how they fair against key decision variables that are important for planning SWM infrastructure in a city. It should be noted that technology costs from secondary sources are purely technology costs i.e. initial investment and net cost (after deducting revenues form materials and energy recovery) during operation of such facilities. They do not represent the actual system cost which might include additional cost components, as1. Waste characteristics such as C/N ratio, moisture content, calorific value of waste stream etc. which will decide the configuration or design of processing plant and the actual cost. 2. Cost of implementing policy interventions or regulation (discussed under Section 5) which might be required in conjunction with a new technology for improved management of urban SW

48

Draft, not for citation

3. Cost of redesigning existing SWM system which includes- positive costs from additional waste collection, sorting or storage capacities which might be required for new treatment infrastructure and negative cost from reduced burden on existing MSW collection and transportation system 4. Environmental and social costs or benefits such as reduced ecological impact, improved public health, benefits to informal sector, city resilience etc. For above reasons, information on technology cost is only comparative and actual costs are not captured in this table. It is perceived that with the local context costs will vary greatly from city to city. The information captured here is synthesised from secondary sources (listed beneath the Table 7) to serve as a guide to policymakers. The actual costs of these technologies which are representative of urban India, can be found in public sources such as Report of the Task Force on WtE (PC 2014).

49

Draft, not for citation

Technology

Composting

Biomethanation

Incineration WtE

Pyrolysis & Gasification

Pelletisation

Mechanical Biological Treatment

Landfill Gas Recovery

Organic

Organic fractions, waste water and sludge

Mixed, disposable waste

Organic, wood, plastic

Mixed, disposable Yard waste, organic waste

Mixed waste

Segregation requirement

Very high

Very high

Low

High

High

Low

Low

Plant size suitability

Small

Small-medium

Large

Small- large

Small- large

Small-large

Small-Large

Volume reduction

50-70%

45-50%

75-90%

50-90%

Variable

Variable

N.A.

Land requirement

High

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

Moderate

N.A.

High moisture suitability

High

Very low

Low

Low

High

High

Leachate pollution

High

Low

Moderate

Low

Low

None

Low

None

None

None

Liquid fuels, syngas Solid fuel

Technology dependent

Fuel (landfill gas)

Decision variable Suitable SW fraction

Toxicity Co-benefits

High 24

Moderate

38

None

None

Compost

Biogas/methane, compost

39

Moderate-high

Electricity, heat 40

Emissions to air

No

No

High

Low

No

No

No

Capital Cost

Low

High

Very High

Very High

Low-Moderate

Low

Low

Operation challenges

Low

Moderate

High

Very high

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate-High

Source: CEEW; Kumar & Sil 2015; UNEP & ISWA 2015; Jha et al. 2011; Hanrahan & Srivastava 2006

Table 7 Summary of technological options of SWM depicting how different decision variables fair in technology selection 38

if not routed properly ash residues containing heavy metals 40 without multi-stage gas cleaning 39

50

Draft, not for citation

5.5.1. Biological Conversions A large fraction of solid waste is bio-degradable waste. It is largely the discards of vegetables, fruits and food waste originating from households, restaurants, hotels etc. A large part of methane emissions occurs when these biological fractions undergo degradation under anaerobic conditions at the disposal sites. Organic waste presents an opportunity for energy recovery and composting. When the compost derived from the biogenic waste feeds back into the biosphere as nutrients, it forms a closed loop biological system. Bio-conversion takes place either in presence of air (aerobic) or absence of air (anaerobic) and technologies can broadly be categorised into two types which are discussed in following subsections.

Composting without energy-recovery Aerobic digestion of waste releases CO2, water and leads to temperature and pH increase during the process. Heat produced during the aerobic digestion can be utilised for pretreatment of waste as described under the subsection 5.4.3. Unlike anaerobic, aerobic digestion does not release methane. Aerobic digestion could again be either dry or wet aerobic. Dry aerobic is more common and it requires in-vessel digestion before stabilisation in aerated piles before yielding quality compost in solid form. Wet aerobic digestion is new and emerging and requires pulping, mixing, heating, aeration and inoculation. Later generates both solid and liquid fertiliser products. Two of the composting models that have widely been commercialised in India are open pit composting and Excel composting. Composting is low-cost mean to neutralise MSW (Table 7) and cost for composting in international literature varies from USD 25~70/ tonne waste (UNEP and ISWA 2015) depending on the design and local context. Two other decentralised composting models i.e. home composting and vermicomposting have significant potential to direct major fraction of solid waste for reuse at home and promote source segregation of waste. Home composting has proven to be very successful in an urban environment and is gaining popularity and interest among Indian urbanites. Vermicomposting has extensively been used in rural India but it has proved to be especially challenging for MSW due to adverse effect of heavy metals such as Cadmium, Chromium, Zinc and Lead on worms (CPHEEO 2000).

Biomethanation Anaerobic digestion or biomethanation can be used to stabilise urban solid waste and wastewater. It is essentially anaerobic digestion which takes place at landfill sites but it

51

Draft, not for citation

happens at much slower rates when compared to a biomethanation plant. It is estimated that in biomethanation process- 1 tonne of SW produces around 3 times the quantity of methane in 3 weeks period compared to what 1 tonne of “SW buried in landfill” will produce in 6-7 years (Jha et al. 2007; Kumar and Sil 2015). Anaerobic digestion produces biogas41 which can either be utilised directly in combustors42 or as “compressed methane” in light and heavy duty vehicles. Later application requires scrubbing biogas of CO2, H2S and water in order to get usable methane. An important by-product from anaerobic digestion is solid digestate which can be used as a soil-conditioner43 or organic fertiliser after a period of aerobic stabilisation. Wet anaerobic requires mixing water and pulping before waste can be fed into a single or two-stage reactor. Wet anaerobic process operation requires optimal heat and moisture conditions inside bioreactor. Dry anaerobic requires shredding, mixing and inoculation with microbes before it can be fed into a plug-flow digester. Anaerobic digestion is slower than aerobic digestion. In thermophilic digestion, it can be aided with thermophilic44 microbes to reduce the retention time inside bio-digester. For a dry anaerobic treatment of organic SW, mesophilic digestion is found to have retention time of 20~35 days whereas thermophilic digestion greatly reduces it to 5~15 days and increases the methane yield (Jha et al. 2011). Although this increase in methane yield need to be balanced against increased auxiliary energy requirements to maintain reactor at higher temperatures to be able to gain any benefits from thermophilic digesters (Jha et al. 2011). Although anaerobic digestion has been successfully applied across the globe, for treating sewage sludge and livestock waste, it is particularly challenging for MSW (UNEP and ISWA 2015). Two main challenges of biomethanation associated with MSW are1. High solid content and inhomogeneous nature of urban solid waste (UNEP and ISWA 2015), which keeps varying day by day, make process control difficult. 2. Segregation requirements for biological processes are very high45 (Kumar and Sil 2015). Contamination of organic waste with the toxic materials (from mixing of hazardous waste into MSW streams) and other impurities, such as heavy metals, may result in poor quality compost and significantly compromises the efficiency of energy conversion. Biomehtanation has been successfully adopted for MSW in Europe owing to sourcesegregation upstream whereas it has not been so successful in Asian cities due to very low or 41

Biogas is 50-60% methane with other impurities such as CO2, H2S, water etc. boilers, gas turbines or internal combustion engines 43 It enhances soil’s water retention and resistance to erosion 44 Thermophilic bio-digestion requires temperatures inside bio-reactors at 55 0C in contrast to mesophilic digestion which requires temperatures at 35 0C 45 Compared to other treatment processes such as palletisation, pyrolysis (high) and incineration (low) where they vary from high to low. 42

52

Draft, not for citation

no source-segregation of waste at all (UNEP 2011). Empirical evidence suggests the biogas production rates from source separated organic matter and mixed waste are- 200 m3 and 60 m3 of biogas per tonne of treated waste respectively (Jha et al. 2011). Despite of challenges outlined above, there are also opputunities that exist for biomethanantion which can be exploited through local adaptation of technology. Various studies suggest that co-digestion is able to increase methane yield through bacterial diversities in different waste streams and at the same time, increase the compost quality through supply of missing nutrients (Nishio & Nakashimada 2007; Jha et al. 2011; Li et al. 2011). Biomethanation is a moderately costly tool compared with others means to neutralise MSW (table…) and cost for biomethanation in international literature varies from USD 65~120/ tonne waste (UNEP and ISWA 2015).

5.5.2 Thermo-chemical Conversions Thermo-chemical conversions cover various methods via which solid waste can be processed under purely thermal processes or under thermo-chemical processes. In later case, chemical composition of waste is altered under specific temperature and pressure conditions, to convert it into usable fuels with high energy values. Thermo-chemical treatments can be classified into broad categories which are explained in the following sub-sections.

Incineration with and without energy-recovery Incineration includes controlled or complete combustion of solid waste at 980~2000 0C. It has potential to reduce the treated SW by 80-90% of its original volume (COWI and KEC 2004). Incineration could be either with or without energy recovery and waste input could be either mixed-waste or RDF. Incineration without energy recovery has long been used for destruction of toxic waste, for instance small incinerators which are used for neutralising medical waste at hospitals. Large scale incineration with energy recovery has been adopted in cities around the world either for disposable and non-recyclable waste streams or for a lack of source-segregation. WtE incineration is the third most preferred option worldwide for waste disposal after landfilling and recycling (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata 2012). It provides a simple and an effective mean for eradication of SW and its end-of-life impacts. But large scale adoption of such WtE incineration technology has its own problems and challenges and can compromise long-term sustainability of cities. Two main systemic challenges associated with incineration technologies, which affect its environmental, social and economic sustainability, are1. It fails to address the solid waste issue sustainably, if recyclable materials are subjected to incineration, indiscriminately. This is especially true in India’s context where formal recycling efforts are non-existent and informal recycling sector in not recognised by municipalities. So in this case, incineration WtE also impacts

53

Draft, not for citation

livelihood of informal recyclers in addition to lost opportunity of recovering materials to close the material loop from consumers back to the producers or manufacturers. 2. Although incineration based WtE might seem an environmentally benign option, it requires robust emission reduction technology to be so. Modern WtE incineration processes utilise multi-stage flue gas cleaning to meet environment standards. Without these, WtE plants have potential to generate toxic fumes containing acidic gases, particulate matter, heavy metals and incomplete combustion products such as dioxins (UNEP and ISWA 2015). This combined with unsuitability of India’s MSW makes incineration based WtE economically sustainable in India. It is found that the mixed waste sourced from municipal collection system in India has high organic content high organic content (40~60%), high moisture level46 (40~60%), high inert content (30~50%) and has low calorific value 800~1000 k Cal/ kg -SW (Kumar and Sil 2015) which render it unsuitable for incineration based WtE. In addition, Poor implementation of emission control regulation in India might render it environmentally and hence, socially unsustainable. Incineration WtE is a high cost option to treat waste (Table 7) and net investment is estimated to be $ 95-190 per tonne of waste (UNEP and ISWA 2015). As outlined in the Table 7, only large sized plants are possible with this technology as they allow for economy of scale to make such plants economically viable. Thermal technologies have nevertheless been reported to contribute to a major market share of WtE technologies globally47 and advanced technologies such as plasma arc gasification are being piloted in countries like Japan, Canada and UK (UNEP 2011).

Pyrolysis and Gasification Pyrolysis and gasification are used to stabilise mainly the organic fractions of waste which can give rise to liquid fuel and syngas including solid residues. It involves thermochemical degradation of waste in either complete absence of air (pyrolysis) or in limited air (gasification). This option is most suitable for waste with high calorific value and low moisture content such wood and plastic waste (UNEP and ISWA 2015). The gaseous product is Syngas which is a mix of hydrogen, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. Syngas requires removal of impurities like heavy metals or chlorides prior to application in combustors for producing energy or chemical processing to produce methanol as transportation fuel or other chemicals. Other product of this conversion is organic liquids or light hydrocarbons. Solid residues include char. If inorganic fractions are also processed in pyrolysis process, additional by products are vitrified silica and mixed metals. Pyrolysis and gasification technology have 46 47

auxiliary fuel requirements increase with higher moisture content 93%, rest 7% is attributed to biomethanation

54

Draft, not for citation

been piloted for MSW in the Republic Korea, Japan, North America and Europe but are not widespread due to high costs and significant operational challenges associated with MSW. Pyrolysis is a high cost option to treat waste (Table 7) and net investment cost is the same range as incineration based WtE (UNEP and ISWA 2015). 5.5.3 Other Technology Options

Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) MBT refers to a variety of mechanical and biological means by which urban solid waste can be processed at a single facility. It is specially designed facility to treat mixed waste streamseither non-segregated MSW or residual MSW (disposable) after source separation of dry recyclables. MSW stream entering an MBT facility is first sorted into different streams by utilising various mechanical means so that material and energy recovery becomes easy in later stages which include composting, biomethanation, pelletisation etc. Depending upon the composition of waste stream, MBT might include1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Mechanical sorting for other dry recyclables such as paper, plastic etc. Magnetic sorting for metal waste Forced aeration for stabilising biodegradable fractions Aerobic digestion and composting Biodrying for organic fractions Anaerobic digestion to process biological waste for methane Mechanical or thermal means to minimise moisture content Processing of suitable fractions for pelletisation or RDF

Biodrying (5) utilises the heat generated from aerobic digestion of organic fractions for pretreatment of the same. This saves energy requirements for otherwise, mechanical or thermal means of drying (7) waste. It is applied in modern MBT plants along with high aeration to generate high quality solid fuel48 from MSW which can then be used in a thermal power plant designed for this purpose or as a fuel in industrial boilers. UNEP study of international literature suggests the net cost of technology (USD 20-70 per tonne of waste) in the similar range (UNEP and ISWA 2015) as composting.

48

Partial stabilisation of organic fractions

55

Draft, not for citation

Palletisation Pelletisation provides an effective mean of converting MSW into solid fuels. Yard waste which comprising leaves, grass etc. can be turned into solid fuel pellets to be used a kitchen or industrial fuel. This requires shredding, drying and compacting of waste. Such conversions utilising mixed waste from municipal waste collection system, are termed as Refuse-derived fuel (RDF). Solid fuel pellets or RDF can be used in an incinerator or industrial boilers for energy recovery. The cost of pelletisation is expected to be in the similar range as composting and MBT but waste characteristics (such as moisture content, calorific value etc.) and application of pellets will decide the exact cost of such option.

Landfill Gas (LFG) Recovery Landfill gas49 recovery system is applied downstream to SWM supply chain, to curb LFG or methane emissions, after the solid waste is landfilled. Methane emissions occur in landfills, naturally under the anaerobic conditions (absence of air). This causes release of high global warming gas into the atmosphere and poses a threat to life from fire hazard by methane deposition at site or in surrounding area. LFG recovery addresses both of these issues for uncontrolled landfills and they are an integral part of controlled and scientifically designed landfills.

49

Mix of CO2 and CH4

56

Draft, not for citation

6. Conclusions Increasingly heterogeneous and gargantuan amount of urban solid waste, coupled with lack strategy by local governments to manage it, have led to very high environmental pressures on land, water and air systems in cities. Practices such as uncontrolled landfilling50, open burning, incineration and mixed-waste pose serious threat to urban ecosystem and health of urban dwellers, undermining the quality of life in cities. Fundamental issues inherent in cities have led to weaker waste management. Unmanaged urban growth, in form of unplanned expansions, and lack of service coverage result into illegal dumping and open burning. Lack of empowerment to local governments exacerbates the challenge. It is important to factor “Land as resource” into city’s development plan. Land-use should be made an integrated part of resource management and planning in cities through empowerment of local governance by states51. Development of formal waste management system in India has largely been driven by public health and environmental concerns while resource conservation and climate change have not yet found priority in waste action. Strategic plans and focussed policy interventions to encourage sustainable behaviour among consumers and producers are non-existent. Some of these policy interventions52 may be favourable to check rise of uncontrolled landfills rampant in cities. Concrete steps from National, State and Local governments are required in order tackle the growing challenges of solid waste in cities. Following can be concluded for effectively managing solid waste in cities, 1. Quality data and information eco-system is vital to development of better waste management systems in cities. Mapping of sources (with their characterisation) and sinks of waste in city is essential to development of sound waste management practices. It is also important for improving operational efficiencies and financial sustainability of municipal operations in cities. Such data should part of yearly waste audits in cities which consistently capture changes over long periods of time so that progress in cities can be evaluated and forms an integral part of infrastructure planning. In this way, risks pertaining to local adaptation of technologies can also be mitigated. Cities authorities will need to map local information at ward level, utilising innovative approaches so that it leads to participatory planning, community-led initiatives and social innovation. Mapping decentralised and highlighting best practices within communities can lead to uptake of community-led initiatives. 2. Cities need to prioritise policy action on waste management. Downstream instruments such as Pay as You Throw and landfill/ incineration taxes check uncontrolled landfilling and at the same time, provide revenues for municipal operations. Role of robust recycling system and 50

Two of the landfills, Deonar in Mumbai and Bhalsawa in Delhi were on fire while this report was being written Land is s state subject in India 52 Policy instruments are commonly used in combination to optimise their affect 51

57

Draft, not for citation

information becomes even more important in wake of such instruments. Any such interventions need to be supplemented with adequate storage and information for reuse/ recycling. Affluent communities with high generation rates should be encouraged to undertake independent waste audits so that that they could prioritise action at local level. Resource conservation is formally not an integral part of waste management in Indian cities yet. City byelaws should enforce waste generators to maintain separate stream of dry recyclables, over and above the requirements of solid waste management rules 2016, for efficient recycling of materials. Upstream instruments can bridge the gap between production and consumption processes, reducing wasteful use of resources. Interventions such as deposit-refund systems, voluntary take-back schemes, product-input taxes, recycling credits and packaging regulations can leverage producer behaviour in favour of waste management. 3. Land is under competing economic and environmental pressures due to rapid urbanisationfor providing ecosystem services and delivering urban services including waste management. Importance of “land as a resource” is not fully understood and local governments need empowerment from States and capacity building in this direction. Land needs to be factored as an important parameter for infrastructure planning and resource management at local level. Cities can meet land requirement for developing decentralised infrastructure by pooling land resources among urban settlements, akin to the regional clustering for common treatment facilities. 4. Citizen participation for segregation at source and recycling programmes are other critical factors that will decide cities’ success in dealing with waste management challenge. New institutions are required in order to encourage participatory planning approaches in cities. Ward level Eco-information centres can act as bridge between citizen groups and planning cell of municipal institution responsible for waste management. Their primary task would be to assess societal and environmental attitudes for successful implementation of waste management strategies and maintaining information tools for local level implementation. Such institutions can also address NIMBY related issues at community level. 5. Local adaptation is imperative for any new technological intervention in cities. ULBs should learn from past failures and propose concrete roadmap for local adaptation of new technology. Organic waste constitutes a large fraction of urban solid waste and it should be seen as an opportunity for composting and waste-to-energy through biomethanation. So far the central composting plants and incineration WtE plants have failed all over India due to lack in technological adaptation and careful planning. Avoiding mixed waste should be the first step in this direction and such regulations need to be strictly enforced in city byelaws so that they invite heavy penalties. Maintaining nutrient balances through co-digestion of biodegradable wastes should be important part of strategy.

58

Draft, not for citation

6. Upstream management strategies are much more impactful from material sustainability perspective. They can generate green jobs and skill upgradation for urban poor through a renewed focus on recycling and integration of informal sector. An integrated approach, through drawing trade-offs among various socioeconomic and environmental benefits of alternative waste management arrangement can help cities meet the goals of sustainability. This will require promotion of science-based approaches which indicate environmental footprints of products/ packaging over their lifecycles, strengthening of product eco-labels and socio-economic valuations of recycling activities.

References Agarwal, Ankit, Ashish Singhmar, Mukul Kulshrestha, and Atul K. Mittal. 2005. ‘Municipal Solid Waste Recycling and Associated Markets in Delhi, India’. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 44(1):73–90. Balasubramanian, M. 2015. ‘Economics of Solid Waste in India’. Economics and Political Weekly, 17–20. Basu, Soma. 2013. ‘Wasted Wealth’. Down to Earth. Retrieved 20 May 2012 (http://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/wasted-wealth-41917). CDM. 2012. ‘Monitoring Report Form (F-CDM-MR) Version 02.0’. Retrieved (http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/5/s/87RBJUWNA3LFED2KOPIXGMSQ50Y4VT.pdf/ MR_1254_The TIMARPUR-OKHLA.pdf?t=V1B8bzY1c2h4fDDNIo8Z4S69pkgoa6DNMZ4). Census. 2001. ‘Census of India’. Ministry of Home Affairs, Office of Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. Retrieved (http://censusindia.gov.in/). Census. 2011. ‘Census of India’. Ministry of Home Affairs, Office of Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. Retrieved (http://censusindia.gov.in/). Chikarmane, Poornima. 2012. ‘Integrating Waste Pickers into Municipal Solid Waste Management in Pune, India’. WIEGO Policy Brief (Urban Policies). COWI and KEC. 2004. MCD Feasibility Study and Master Plan for Optimal Waste Treatment and Disposal for the Entire State of Delhi Based on Public Private Partnership Solutions. Delhi: Municipal Corporation of Delhi. CPCB. 2005. ‘Waste Generation and Composition’. Retrieved 1 January 2015 (http://cpcb.nic.in/wast/municipalwast/Waste_generation_Composition.pdf). CPCB. 2012. ‘Status Report on Municipal Solid Waste Management’. CPHEEO. 2000. ‘Manual on Municipal Solid Waste Management’. Retrieved (http://moud.gov.in/advisory/swm_manual). CPHEEO. 2014. ‘Draft Manual on Municipal Solid Waste Management (2014)’. Retrieved (http://moud.gov.in/sites/upload_files/moud/files/pdf/Draft on manual.pdf). CSD. 2009. ‘Waste Management’. in 18th-19th Session of The Commission on Sustainable

59

Draft, not for citation

Development (CSD): National Report. The republic of Korea. Retrieved (http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_aofw_ni/ni_pdfs/NationalReports/korea/full_report.pdf) . CSE. 2014. Strengthen Institutions, Reform Laws and Streamline Processes: Agenda for Improving Environmental Governance in India. DDA. 2007. ‘Master Plan for Delhi - 2021’. Retrieved (http://dda.org.in/planning/MasterPlanNewDelhi2021.htm). DEA. 2009. Position Paper on The Solid Waste Management Sector in India. New Delhi, India. DEMS. 2015. ‘Dhalao List’. Solid Waste Transportation Management System. Retrieved 15 December 2015 (http://mcdonline.gov.in/tri/edmc_mcdportal/dems/). DPCC. 2014. Annual Review Report of Delhi Pollution Control Commitee. Delhi. EPD. 2016. Public Consultation Document: Strengthening Waste Reduction: Is Waste Charging an Option? Hong Kong: Environemental Protection Department- Waste Management Policy Division, The Government of Hong Kong. Retrieved (http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/msw_consult/document/english.html). GFA. 2015. Greening the Food and Beverage Supply Chain in India. Retrieved (http://www.switchasia.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/2015/Switch_Asia_Impact_Sheet_-_2015__Green_Retail.pdf). GNCTD. 2015. ‘Government of NCT of Delhi’. Economic Survey of Delhi 2014 - 2015. Retrieved (http://delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/DoIT_Planning/planning/economic+survey+of+de hli/economic+survey+of+delhi+2014+-+2015). Goorhuis, Maarten, Pieter Reus, Ellen Nieuwenhuis, Mario Sol, and Jørgen Van Rijn. 2012. ‘New Developments in Waste Management in the Netherlands’. Waste Management & Research 30(9):67–77. Retrieved (http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/30/9_suppl/67.full.pdf+html). Hanrahan, David and Sanjay Srivastava. 2006. Improving Management of Municipal Solid Waste in India: Overview and Challenges. New Delhi. Retrieved (www.worldbank.org/in). Hayami, Yujiro, A. K. Dikshit, and S. N. Mishra. 2006. ‘Waste Pickers and Collectors in Delhi : Poverty and Environment in an Urban Informal Sector’. 42(1):41–69. Hoornweg, Daniel and Perinaz Bhada-Tata. 2012. What A Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. Washington, DC. Retrieved (www.worldbank.org/urban). Hoornweg, Daniel and Laura Thomas. 1999. What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia. Washnigton D.C. Retrieved (http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/1999/05/441080/waste-solid-wastemanagement-asia). HPEC. 2011. Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure and Services. New Delhi. Retrieved (http://icrier.org/pdf/FinalReport-hpec.pdf). IIHS. 2011. ‘Urban India 2011 : Evidence’. in Indian Urban Conference 2011: Evidence and Experience. Bangalore: Indian Institute for Human Settlements. Retrieved (https://www.citiesalliance.org/ca/sites/citiesalliance.org/files/IUC Booklet on Indian cities.pdf). IPCC. 2007. ‘Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing’. in The physical Science basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment

60

Draft, not for citation

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Retrieved (https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html). Jha, Ajay Kumar, Jianzheng Li, Loring Nies, and Liguo Zhang. 2011. ‘Research Advances in Dry Anaerobic Digestion Process of Solid Organic Wastes’. African Journal of Biotechnology 10(65):14242–53. Retrieved (http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB). Jha, Arvind K. et al. 2007. ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Management in Indian Mega-Cities : A Case Study of Chennai Landfill Sites’. Chemosphere. Retrieved (www.elsevier.com/locate/chemosphere). Joshi, Bhanu and Shahana Sheikh. 2015. ‘State versus Municipal Funds’. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol – L no 20. Kumar, Sunil and Avick Sil. 2015. ‘Challenges and Opportunities in SWM in India: A Perspective’. Pp. 193–210 in Cities and Sustainability: Issues and Strategic Pathways. New Delhi, India: Springer. Li, Jianzheng, Ajay Kumar Jha, Junguo He, Qiaoying Ban, and Sheng Chang. 2011. ‘Assessment of the Effects of Dry Anaerobic Co- Digestion of Cow Dung with Waste Water Sludge on Biogas Yield and Biodegradability’. International Journal of the Physical Sciences 6(15):3723–32. MapmyIndia and MCD. 2015. ‘MCD Online’. Retrieved 1 January 2015 (http://alpha.mapmyindia.com/mcdApp/). MCD. 2015. ‘MCD Online - Solid Waste Transportation Management System (STMS)’. Retrieved 1 January 2016 (http://mcdonline.gov.in/tri/edmc_mcdportal/dems/). Medina, Martin. 2010. ‘Solid Wastes, Poverty and the Environment in Developing Country Cities Challenges and Opportunities’. UNU WIDER Working Paper Series 23:1–17. Retrieved (http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/workingpapers/2010/en_GB/wp2010-23/). Modak, Prasad, Yang Jiemian, Yu Hongyuan, and Choudhury Rudra Mohanty. 2012. ‘Municipal Solid Waste Management: Turning Waste into Resource’. in Shanghai Manual – A Guide for Sustainable Urban Development in the 21st Century. Shanghai, China: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved (http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/susdevtopics/sdt_pdfs/shanghaimanual/Chapter 5 Waste_management.pdf). MOEF and GNCTD. 2001. Delhi Urban Environment and Infrastructure Improvement Project (DUEIIP) - Delhi 21. Delhi. Retrieved (http://delhiplanning.nic.in/Reports/delhi2021.htm). MoEFCC. 2015. ‘Solid Waste Management Draft Rules, 2015’. Retrieved (http://www.moef.nic.in/sites/default/files/SWM Rules 2015 -Vetted 1 - final.pdf). MoEFCC. 2016a. ‘Press Release: Solid Waste Management Rules 2016’. Retrieved (http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=138591). MoEFCC. 2016b. ‘Salient Features of Solid Waste Management Rules 2016’. Retrieved (http://pibphoto.nic.in/documents/rlink/2016/apr/p20164504.pdf). MoEFCC. 2016c. ‘Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016? What Is New?’ Retrieved (http://pibphoto.nic.in/documents/rlink/2016/apr/p20164502.pdf). MoEFCC. 2016d. ‘SWM Rules 2016 - Major Changes and Likely Implications’. Retrieved (http://pibphoto.nic.in/documents/rlink/2016/apr/p20164503.pdf). MoUD. 2015. ‘Level of Urbanisation’. Retrieved (http://moud.gov.in/urbanscenario/levelurbanisation).

61

Draft, not for citation

MoUD. 2016. ‘Statewise Implementation of Various Components under SMB’. Swach bharat Urban. Retrieved 1 January 2016 (http://swachhbharaturban.gov.in/writereaddata/Statewise_status_of_implementation.pdf ). MVC. 2010. ‘Third Municipal Valuation Committee (Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi) - Interim Report’. NCRPB. 2005. Regional Plan 2021. New Delhi: National Capital Region Planning Board, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. Retrieved (http://ncrpb.nic.in/regionalplan2021.php). NDMC. 2015. ‘New Delhi Municipal Council’. Retrieved 1 January 2015 (https://www.ndmc.gov.in/). Nishio, Naomichi and Yutaka Nakashimada. 2007. ‘Recent Development of Anaerobic Digestion Processes for Energy Recovery from Wastes’. Journal of Biosciences and Bioengineering 103(2):105–12. PC. 2014. Report of the Task Force on Waste to Energy ( Volume I ): In the Context of Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management. Planning Commission, Government of India. Retrieved (http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_wte1205.pdf). Rao, Rajiv. 2013. ‘The Tangled Tale of Jindal’s Waste-to- Energy Project’. Business Standard. Retrieved (http://www.business-standard.com/article/specials/the-tangledtale-of-jindal-s-waste-to-energy-project-113060300039_1.html). Rawat, Manju and AL. Ramanathan. 2011. ‘Assessment of Methane Flux from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfill Areas of Delhi, India’. Journal of Environmental Protection 02(04):399–407. Retrieved (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?DOI=10.4236/jep.2011.24045). Ritu Gupta. 2006. ‘Timarpur Waste Management Company in Delhi Set to Revive Plant’. Down To Earth. Retrieved (http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/timarpur-wastemanagement-company-in-delhi-set-to-revive-plant-8035). Scheinberg, Anne et al. 2010. Economic Aspects of the Informal Sector in Solid Waste Management. Eschborn, Germany. Schulze, Claudia, Carlo Znadonella, and Petra Gutsche. 2013. Municipal Waste Management in Berlin. Berlin: Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment. Berlin. Germany. Retrieved (www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/abfall). Scott, Sue and Dorothy Watson. 2006. Introduction of Weight-Based Charges for Domestic Solid Waste Disposal. Wexford, Ireland: Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved (www.epa.ie). Shah, Dharmesh. 2011. The Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Venture. Retrieved (http://www.no-burn.org/downloads/Timarpur.pdf). Sruthijith, KK. 2011. ‘Jindal Group ’ S Upcoming Waste ­ to ­ Energy Plant Has Delhi Fuming’. Economic Times. Retrieved (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-10-06/news/30250476_1_plant-opjindal-group-waste-incinerator). Talyan, Vikash, R. P. Dahiya, S. Anand, and T. R. Sreekrishnan. 2007. ‘Quantification of Methane Emission from Municipal Solid Waste Disposal in Delhi’. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 50(3):240–59. Talyan, Vikash, R. P. Dahiya, and T. R. Sreekrishnan. 2007. ‘State of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Delhi, the Capital of India’. Waste Management 28(7):1276–87.

62

Draft, not for citation

TERI. 2013. TERI Environmental Survey 2013. New Delhi , India. TERI. 2014. TERI Enviromental Survey 2014. New Delhi, India. UDD. 2006. ‘Solid Waste Management’. in City Devlopemnt Plan. New Delhi: Urban Devlopment Department, Government of Delhi. Retrieved (http://jnnurm.nic.in/wpcontent/uploads/2010/12/CDP_Delhi.pdf). UN DESA. 2014. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. UNEP. 2011. ‘Waste: Investing in Energy and Resource Efficiency’. Pp. 286–327 in Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. Nairobi, Kenya. Retrieved (www.unep.org/greeneconomy). UNEP and ISWA. 2015. Global Waste Management Outlook. edited by T. Cannon. Vienna, Austria: UNEP’s International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC); International Solid Waste Association (ISWA). UNFCCC. 2016. ‘Clean Development Mechanism: Project Database’. Retrieved 1 January 2016 (https://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/projsearch.html). USEPA. 2016. ‘Superfund’. Retrieved (https://www.epa.gov/superfund). Wilson, David C. 2007. ‘Development Drivers for Waste Management’. Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA 25(3):198–207. Retrieved (http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0734242X07079149). Zhu, Da, P. U. Asnani, Chris Zurbrügg, Sebastian Anapolsky, and Shyamala Mani. 2008. Improving Municipal Solid Waste Management in India : A Sourcebook for Policy Makers. Washington, DC: The World Bank Institute. Retrieved (https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/6916).

63